United States v. Johnson, Frank

Third Circuit

United States v. Johnson, Frank

717 F.2d 859

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 1983

Docket83-3109

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 717 F.2d 859 (United States v. Johnson, Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Johnson, Frank, 717 F.2d 859 (3d Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Frank Johnson, was convicted along with Robert Andre Ruff (“Ruff”) of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), transportation of a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and conspiracy to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The defendant and Ruff have each appealed their convictions. In an opinion filed this day, we affirmed Ruff’s conviction. United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855 (3d Cir.1983).

The defendant raises a number of issues on appeal. He claims that the trial judge improperly refused voir dire questions posed by defense counsel; that the absence of any blacks on the jury that convicted him indicates a patently prejudicial plan of jury selection; that the statements of a prospective juror concerning one of the main government witnesses prejudiced the entire jury panel; that the trial court improperly presented the defendant’s admissions and/or confessions before sufficient corpus delicti was properly established; and generally, that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

Having carefully considered each of these contentions, and finding each to be without merit, we will affirm defendant’s conviction.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Frank Johnson, was convicted along with Robert Andre Ruff (“Ruff”) of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), transportation of a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and conspiracy to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The defendant and Ruff have each appealed their convictions. In an opinion filed this day, we affirmed Ruff’s conviction. United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855 (3d Cir.1983).

The defendant raises a number of issues on appeal. He claims that the trial judge improperly refused voir dire questions posed by defense counsel; that the absence of any blacks on the jury that convicted him indicates a patently prejudicial plan of jury selection; that the statements of a prospective juror concerning one of the main government witnesses prejudiced the entire jury panel; that the trial court improperly presented the defendant’s admissions and/or confessions before sufficient corpus delicti was properly established; and generally, that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

Having carefully considered each of these contentions, and finding each to be without merit, we will affirm defendant’s conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 F.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnson-frank-ca3-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack