A. C. Coleman, Jr., and James Dillard Johnson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

A. C. Coleman, Jr., and James Dillard Johnson v. United States

367 F.2d 388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1966

Docket20348

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 367 F.2d 388 (A. C. Coleman, Jr., and James Dillard Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. C. Coleman, Jr., and James Dillard Johnson v. United States, 367 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendants have appealed from judgments of conviction upon verdicts finding them guilty of bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). Finding no error, we affirm.

The record contains substantial evidence that warrants the jury’s decision. It is not the province of an appellate court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. And the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury to draw' no adverse inference against defendants because of their failure to testify. To the contrary, his charge constituted a faithful compliance with the “implied direction” given district judges by Congress to fulfil] “their traditional duty in guiding the jury by indicating the considerations relevant to the latter’s verdict on the facts.” Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 293, 60 S.Ct. 198, 200, 84 L.Ed. 257 (1939). Similarly, his cautionary instruction concerning testimony of an accomplice was proper, for the jury might have considered the government’s witness Hunter, who wrote the holdup note, a participant in the crime. But even if abstract, the instruction was beneficial rather than harmful to defendants. Phelps v. United States, 252 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1958).

The remaining assignments, urged by one of the defendants alone, are so patently lacking in substance that they do not merit discussion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The defendants have appealed from judgments of conviction upon verdicts finding them guilty of bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). Finding no error, we affirm.

The record contains substantial evidence that warrants the jury’s decision. It is not the province of an appellate court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. And the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury to draw' no adverse inference against defendants because of their failure to testify. To the contrary, his charge constituted a faithful compliance with the “implied direction” given district judges by Congress to fulfil] “their traditional duty in guiding the jury by indicating the considerations relevant to the latter’s verdict on the facts.” Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 293, 60 S.Ct. 198, 200, 84 L.Ed. 257 (1939). Similarly, his cautionary instruction concerning testimony of an accomplice was proper, for the jury might have considered the government’s witness Hunter, who wrote the holdup note, a participant in the crime. But even if abstract, the instruction was beneficial rather than harmful to defendants. Phelps v. United States, 252 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1958).

The remaining assignments, urged by one of the defendants alone, are so patently lacking in substance that they do not merit discussion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-c-coleman-jr-and-james-dillard-johnson-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack