United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald

441 F.2d 259, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10643

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 20, 1971·No. 71-1184_1·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

MacDonald appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for bank robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). We affirm.

First, MacDonald argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to require the government to conduct a pretrial lineup. The decision on such a motion is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Williams (9 Cir. 1970), 436 F.2d 1166. “Absent abuse of that discretion resulting in procedure ‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification’ as to amount to a denial of due process of law * * * we should not question the trial judge’s ruling.” Williams, supra, 436 F.2d at 1168-1169. There is no showing of abuse of discretion here.

Second, MacDonald’s argument that the trial judge unduly restricted his cross-examination of the identifying witness is wholly without support in the record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

MacDonald appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for bank robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). We affirm.

First, MacDonald argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to require the government to conduct a pretrial lineup. The decision on such a motion is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Williams (9 Cir. 1970), 436 F.2d 1166. “Absent abuse of that discretion resulting in procedure ‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification’ as to amount to a denial of due process of law * * * we should not question the trial judge’s ruling.” Williams, supra, 436 F.2d at 1168-1169. There is no showing of abuse of discretion here.

Second, MacDonald’s argument that the trial judge unduly restricted his cross-examination of the identifying witness is wholly without support in the record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald, 441 F.2d 259, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10643 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

441 F.2d 259 (United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related