United States v. Richard Lee Bostic

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Richard Lee Bostic

327 F.2d 983, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6283

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 22, 1964

Docket15493

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 983 (United States v. Richard Lee Bostic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Richard Lee Bostic, 327 F.2d 983, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6283 (6th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured bank at Kirkersville, Ohio, and was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.

The only contention made on this appeal is that it was prejudicial error on the part of the District Judge to permit the wife of a government witness to testify in rebuttal, over the objection of defense counsel, when she had been in the courtroom during the trial, in violation of the Court’s order directing a separation of witnesses, made at the request of Government counsel.

Violation of the rule directing a separation of witnesses does not automatically bar a witness from testifying. It is a matter within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010; United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 853, C.A. 6th, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122; Easley v. United States, 261 F.2d 276, C.A. 5th; United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625, 631, C.A. 7th, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 1553, 8 L.Ed.2d 497.

It does not appear that the violation of the rule was wilful or with the *984 knowledge or consent of Government counsel. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong. We find no abuse of the Trial Judge’s discretion in permitting the witness to testify.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured bank at Kirkersville, Ohio, and was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.

The only contention made on this appeal is that it was prejudicial error on the part of the District Judge to permit the wife of a government witness to testify in rebuttal, over the objection of defense counsel, when she had been in the courtroom during the trial, in violation of the Court’s order directing a separation of witnesses, made at the request of Government counsel.

Violation of the rule directing a separation of witnesses does not automatically bar a witness from testifying. It is a matter within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010; United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 853, C.A. 6th, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122; Easley v. United States, 261 F.2d 276, C.A. 5th; United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625, 631, C.A. 7th, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 1553, 8 L.Ed.2d 497.

It does not appear that the violation of the rule was wilful or with the *984 knowledge or consent of Government counsel. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong. We find no abuse of the Trial Judge’s discretion in permitting the witness to testify.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 983, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-lee-bostic-ca6-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack