United States v. James Carroll Watkins

Eighth Circuit

United States v. James Carroll Watkins

624 F.2d 65, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15914

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 1980

Docket80-1053

StatusPublished

This text of 624 F.2d 65 (United States v. James Carroll Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. James Carroll Watkins, 624 F.2d 65, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15914 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a conviction, by a jury, of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 1 We affirm the district court. 2

While admitting that, through his attorney, he waived his right to a separate trial and consented to a trial with his co-defendant, defendant argues that the court had a sua sponte duty to declare a severance. Defendant has not demonstrated any “real prejudice” as a result of being tried with his codefendant. United States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1979). He merely argues that the codefendant testified that defendant Watkins was using drugs, and concludes that “the prejudice [from such testimony] is obvious.” Without a showing of clear prejudice and an abuse of discretion by the trial court, defendant cannot prevail with his argument. United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517, 523 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 1682, 52 L.Ed.2d 379 (1977).

Defendant next argues that he was deprived of due process by the prosecutor’s remarks about defendant’s drug dealings and philandering. As the government points out, defendant testified on his own behalf and thus made his truthfulness an issue. The government’s rebuttal argument was an effort to point out some parts of defendant’s testimony that were not truthful. We reject defendant’s argument that this was error.

The district court is affirmed.

1

. Defendant was sentenced to six years.

2

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a conviction, by a jury, of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 1 We affirm the district court. 2

While admitting that, through his attorney, he waived his right to a separate trial and consented to a trial with his co-defendant, defendant argues that the court had a sua sponte duty to declare a severance. Defendant has not demonstrated any “real prejudice” as a result of being tried with his codefendant. United States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1979). He merely argues that the codefendant testified that defendant Watkins was using drugs, and concludes that “the prejudice [from such testimony] is obvious.” Without a showing of clear prejudice and an abuse of discretion by the trial court, defendant cannot prevail with his argument. United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517, 523 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 1682, 52 L.Ed.2d 379 (1977).

Defendant next argues that he was deprived of due process by the prosecutor’s remarks about defendant’s drug dealings and philandering. As the government points out, defendant testified on his own behalf and thus made his truthfulness an issue. The government’s rebuttal argument was an effort to point out some parts of defendant’s testimony that were not truthful. We reject defendant’s argument that this was error.

The district court is affirmed.

1

. Defendant was sentenced to six years.

2

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 F.2d 65, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-carroll-watkins-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack