United States v. William Edward Rabb Appeal of Stephen Nathaniel Williams

Third Circuit

United States v. William Edward Rabb Appeal of Stephen Nathaniel Williams

450 F.2d 343, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1971

Docket19485

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 F.2d 343 (United States v. William Edward Rabb Appeal of Stephen Nathaniel Williams) 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. William Edward Rabb Appeal of Stephen Nathaniel Williams, 450 F.2d 343, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7523 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).

Appellant contends that the district court’s colloquy with the jury at its behest during its deliberations as well as its supplemental instructions constituted error.

We find no reversible error. Assuming that the judge did not fully elaborate the pertinent evidence, the fact is that the judge emphasized repeatedly to the jury at the time that its recollection of the evidence controlled. We might add that after a jury has'commenced its deliberations, we think it undesirable for a trial judge to engage in discussions with individual jurors about *344 particular evidence even though the discussions result from a request by the jury to speak to the court. As to the court’s supplemental legal instructions, we think they were gratuitous and essentially harmless.

We have reviewed the record in the light of the appellant’s other assignments of error and find none.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).

Appellant contends that the district court’s colloquy with the jury at its behest during its deliberations as well as its supplemental instructions constituted error.

We find no reversible error. Assuming that the judge did not fully elaborate the pertinent evidence, the fact is that the judge emphasized repeatedly to the jury at the time that its recollection of the evidence controlled. We might add that after a jury has'commenced its deliberations, we think it undesirable for a trial judge to engage in discussions with individual jurors about *344 particular evidence even though the discussions result from a request by the jury to speak to the court. As to the court’s supplemental legal instructions, we think they were gratuitous and essentially harmless.

We have reviewed the record in the light of the appellant’s other assignments of error and find none.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F.2d 343, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-edward-rabb-appeal-of-stephen-nathaniel-williams-ca3-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack