UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MARION LEE WALKER, APPELLANT
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.
Conviction of an accessory after the fact does not require the principal to have been convicted first.
Lee was charged as an accessory after the fact to his brother Junior's bank robbery. Junior had not yet been convicted of the robbery at the time of L…
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 Accessory After The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marion Lee Walker (Lee) was charged, under 18 U.S.C. § 3, with being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery allegedly committed by his brother, Junior Harold Walker (Junior). Lee was convicted following a jury trial and takes this appeal.
At the time Lee was tried, Junior had not been convicted of the bank robbery. Because of this circumstance, Lee argues that the trial court, upon its own motion, should have entered a judgment of acquittal. However, conviction of the principal is not a necessary condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory after the fact. Hiram v. United States, 9 Cir., 354 F. 2d 4, 6, note 2 (9th Cir. 1965).
Lee also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilty. Considering the evidence which was entirely circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the Government, we think that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Junior robbed the bank, that Lee had actual knowledge that Junior robbed the bank, and that, with such knowledge, Lee gave assistance and comfort to Junior with the intent of preventing Junior’s apprehension and trial for the robbery.
Affirmed.