JERRY D. GRAY, 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 the joinder of two robbery counts for trial was permissible and did not result in prejudice to the appellant.
Appellant was convicted on two counts of robbery and received concurrent sentences. He appealed, arguing he was prejudiced by being tried on both coun…
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 Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 14 (Relief From Prejudicial Joinder) cases and more on FLexlaw
BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of robbery and received concurrent sentences. On this appeal, appellant’s counsel urges that appellant was prejudiced by being tried on both counts at the same time, and cites Fed.R.Crim.P. 14.1 We think it clear that the joinder was permissible under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a).2
Appellant relies heavily on Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F. 2d 85 (1964). In that case, however, timely protest was made in the trial court “before, during and after the trial.” In the instant case, no protest was ever made. Despite this fact, we have carefully searched the record to determine whether there was plain error affecting substantial rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
In our opinion, there is no basis, in this record, for holding that the joinder and trial of these two counts in fact resulted in prejudice to appellant. The two offenses occurred on different nights within one month of each other, in the same apartment building; and the modus operandi was the same in each case, although two different women were involved. Appellant situated himself, in each instance, in the blind corner of the passenger elevator (the doors of which opened only three-quarters of the way) and, as it moved, he assaulted and robbed each of the two women. Appellant was identified by each of the victims, the distinction between the two offenses was made evident by the testimony, and the trial judge was careful to review separately the evidence as to each of the two offenses. (Daly v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 342 F. 2d 932 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 853, 86 S.Ct. 102, 15 L.Ed.2d 91, Oct. 11, 1965.)
We have examined the other points urged' by appellant and find no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Relief from Prejudicial Joinder: “If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
. Joinder of Offenses: “Two or more offenses may he charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. United States, 433 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
-
Robinson v. United States, 459 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
-
Huntley Ruff, Jr. v. United States, 404 F.2d 1348 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- Daly v. United States, 342 F.2d 932 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- Higginbotham v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 382 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1965)
- Daly v. United States, 382 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1965)