From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. DeCarlo

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 1971
446 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 71-1860.

August 13, 1971.

James T. Marquoit, Portland, Or., for appellant.

Jack C. Wong, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.


De Carlo was convicted of robbing a suburban branch of the United States National Bank at Portland, Oregon.

He has one point on appeal: A government witness blurted out something about his escaping from the Rocky Butte local jail while he was incarcerated after his arrest. For this a timely motion was made for a mistrial. The motion was denied.

The point here does not amount to much. The evidence was overwhelming. De Carlo was photographed in the act and he was found with "bait" money in his possession. Also, his fingerprints were found at the scene of the event. Thus, it was not error to deny a motion for a mistrial. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284.


Summaries of

United States v. DeCarlo

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 1971
446 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

United States v. DeCarlo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James John DeCARLO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 13, 1971

Citations

446 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

United States v. Monks

Moreover, there was substantial evidence linking Holt to the crime, including two positive eyewitness…

United States v. Eaton

A delayed motion for a mistrial was not the proper remedy. As in United States v. DeCarlo, 446 F.2d 883, 884,…