UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN JOSEPH MCCLAIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1971-08-03
No. 29224
446 F.2d 648 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)
Cited by 5 cases

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.


Holding

The court found no merit to the appellant's assertions of error regarding trial proceedings and denial of new trial motions.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant asserted multiple errors during trial and in the denial of extraordinary motions for a new trial. These included the introduction of evidenc…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

A careful review of the record in the case below shows there is no merit to the assertions of error1 by the appellant at the trial or of the district court judge’s subsequent denial of the two extraordinary motions for a new trial.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

. On this appeal, the assertions of error by the appellant are:

1. Whether the proof of an offense not charged in the indictment and the introduction of evidence obtained upon the arrest of McClain for that offense for the purpose of showing, scheme, knowledge, and intent were error?

2. Whether introduction of the objected to exhibits was error when two of these exhibits were obtained from McClain before he was advised of his rights?

3. Whether admission of evidence of McClain’s flight and concealing of evidence and evidence relating to the mass theft of identification and credit cards was error?

4. Whether denial of McClain’s two extraordinary motions for new trial based on “recantation of testimony,” “newly discovered evidence,” and “suppressed evidence” when one of the motions was denied without a hearing on the basis of affidavits alone was error ?

5. Whether the court’s instruction on forgery when forgery was not an element of the offense charged was error ?

6. Whether the total effect of the errors complained of including McClain’s being brought into the courtroom handcuffed and the closing remarks of the prosecution constitute error even if any one alone does not?


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw