TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maxie Carter, Sr., Gary Reddish and Preston Johnson v. United States

Maxie CARTER, Sr., Gary Reddish and Preston Johnson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Maxie Carter, Sr., Gary Reddish & Preston Johnson v. United States, 304 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 15, 1962
Docket
No. 19183_1
Judges
Tuttle, Bell, Carswell
Citations
304 F.2d 881

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the several grounds of appeal in this case. We conclude that appellants’ criticism of the trial court’s refusal to sever the Johnson case from that of the other appellants because of Johnson’s having made the damaging extra judicial admission is not well taken. The experienced trial judge repeatedly took effective protective measures to assure that Johnson’s statement would be considered by the jury only in connection with his guilt or innocence.

We find that under the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232 , 77 S.Ct. 294 , 1 L.Ed.2d 278 , any residual recollections the jury may have held of Johnson’s reference to the other defendants would be without prejudice to the other defendants because it would be cumulative to other evidence which was sufficient to tie them into the conspiracy and to warrant the jury’s finding of guilt as to each.

We have considered the other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

The judgments are Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11967: 11968: 219652026peak 1968 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Tanner279 F. Supp. 457 (N.D. Ill. 1967)
  2. United States v. Joe Louis Miller340 F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1965)
  3. United States v. William Edmund Hindmarsh, United States of America v. Charles Edward Hindmarsh389 F.2d 137 (6th Cir. 1968)
  4. Colebrook v. State205 So. 2d 675 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Most recent

  1. United States v. William Edmund Hindmarsh, United States of America v. Charles Edward Hindmarsh389 F.2d 137 (6th Cir. 1968)
  2. Colebrook v. State205 So. 2d 675 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
  3. United States v. Tanner279 F. Supp. 457 (N.D. Ill. 1967)
  4. United States v. Joe Louis Miller340 F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232 (1957) 511

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list