UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TERRY LEE BROWN, APPELLANT, ET AL.

3d Cir. | 1972-11-06
No. 72-1303
471 F.2d 297 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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 held that the jury's assessment of witness credibility is not subject to appellate review and that the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was indicted and tried with codefendants for federal crimes. The jury convicted him on one count and acquitted him on another, with other 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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Brown with two codefendants was indicted for violations of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2113 and 2. Together with his codefendants, appellant was tried to a jury on a four-count indictment. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count 2, not guilty on Count 3, and the court dismissed Counts 1 and 4. On appeal two arguments are advanced.

First, appellant contends that the government did not present credible evidence against him. He urges that the testimony of his former girl friend, who testified on behalf of the government, was unworthy of belief. Clearly, this argument is without merit. “It is not for us to weigh the evidence or to determine the credibility of witnesses.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Evaluating the credibility of witnesses is for the jury; it is not a function of the reviewing court. United States v. Scales, 464 F. 2d 371 (C.A. 6, 1972); United States v. Miller, 460 F. 2d 582 (C.A.10, 1972); Burge v. United States, 333 F. 2d 210 (C.A.9, 1964); United States v. Avellino, 216 F. 2d 877 (C.A. 3, 1954).

Finally, error is predicated upon the failure of the district court to sever the appellant’s trial from that of his co-defendants. We find this contention also to be without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw