United States v. Wilton Eugene Coleman
This text of 457 F.2d 505 (United States v. Wilton Eugene Coleman) 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.
Opinion
Defendant-appellant appeals his conviction, following a trial by jury, for conspiracy to rob a federally insured bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, it is concluded that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. The reasons for affirmance are stated by Judge Frank W. Wilson in his memorandum denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, 1 and in his memorandum and order partially denying defendant’s motion for discovery. 2
It is so ordered.
. The memorandum’s quote from Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 705, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557, should read “But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected.”
. For additional authorities see United States v. Moore, 439 F.2d 1107 (6th Cir. 1971) ; United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1970).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
457 F.2d 505, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wilton-eugene-coleman-ca6-1971.