BENNETT SIDNEY COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE; GEORGE D. STALCUP, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that sustaining an objection to cross-examination regarding promised immunity was not reversible error, and that overt acts committed before withdrawal from a conspiracy justify conviction.
Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to commit bank robbery based largely on the testimony of a co-conspirator. They appealed, arguing the trial co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withdrawal From Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
These appeals from judgments of conviction and sentence entered on the verdict of a jury have been heard and duly considered upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for appellants and for the United States.
The indictments herein charged conspiracy to commit a bank robbery. The convictions were based largely upon the testimony of a co-conspirator, who entered a plea of guilty.
Appellants assert that error was committed by the United States District Judge in sustaining objection to cross-examination of the self-confessed co-conspirator as to immunity promised him. On the record, we find that the witness categorically denied that he had received any such promise. We think no reversible error was committed by the trial judge in his ruling.
In respect of appellant George D. Stalcup, we find that, if his actions be considered a withdrawal from the conspiracy, he had at least committed such overt acts as would justify his conviction for conspiracy. The fact that a defendant, who has committed an overt act in connection with a planned bank robbery, did not participate in the ultimate robbery of the bank would not free him from the conspiracy charge. Poliafico v. United States, 6 Cir., 237 F. 2d 97. In order to convict for conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove that the conspiracy was successful. Blum v. United States, 6 Cir., 46 F. 2d 850. No reversible error being found in the record and there being substantial evidence to support the convictions, the judgments of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Poliafico v. United States, 237 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1956)
- Blum v. United States, 46 F.2d 850 (6th Cir. 1931)