From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gilchrist

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 28, 1965
347 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965)

Opinion

No. 542, Docket 29192.

Argued June 22, 1965.

Decided June 28, 1965.

John S. Martin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Leon B. Polsky, New York City (Arthur P. Gilchrist, pro se, on the brief), for appellant.

Before MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges, and WEINFELD, District Judge.


Arthur Gilchrist was indicted on three counts, one for possessing a letter (a federal tax refund check) known to have been stolen from the mails, and the other two for having forged and uttered a United States Treasurer's check. After a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts. He now appeals pro se attacking the sufficiency of the evidence and claiming that his arrest was unlawful, that he received no preliminary hearing, and that the indictment was insufficiently informative as to the crimes charged.

The Government's case rested largely on the testimony of Gilchrist's accomplice, Dorothy Bertran, with whom he had arranged identification papers and who actually presented the forged check for cashing. Her testimony was sufficient, if believed, to establish Gilchrist's guilt on all three counts — his possession of the stolen check and his aiding and abetting her in its forging and uttering. Most of Gilchrist's points on appeal are merely arguments directed to possible inconsistencies in the Bertran testimony, some based on extra-record information, which go to her credibility.

The illegal arrest claim has not been made before and is not open now. The same principle applies to appellant's claim that he was not afforded a preliminary hearing which, in any event, was no longer required once the indictment was returned. Moreover, the alleged illegality would call only for exclusion of evidence seized or — on some occasions — of oral statements made, of which there were none.

As for the indictment, it charged in the statutory language with sufficient clarity and reference to the precise letter and check in question. That is sufficient.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Gilchrist

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 28, 1965
347 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965)
Case details for

United States v. Gilchrist

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur P. GILCHRIST, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jun 28, 1965

Citations

347 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965)

Citing Cases

United States v. Motte

The grand jury, by returning an indictment, resolved that issue (see United States v. Slaugenhoupt, 102 F.…

United States v. Permisohn

Once an indictment is filed in a case, the need for a preliminary hearing is obviated, the returning of an…