TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert Charles Kochel

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Charles KOCHEL, Appellant

United States v. Kochel, 416 F.2d 370 (4th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 14, 1969
Docket
No. 13099_1
Judges
Boreman, Craven, Butzner
Citations
416 F.2d 3701969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10427

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Robert Charles Kochel, appellant, was charged in a three-count indictment with violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (b), (d), and (f), armed bank robbery, and § 2, aiding and abetting. He was tried before the court without a jury, was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

On appeal Kochel charges violations of his constitutional rights: (1) with respect to the introduction into evidence of an oral statement of Kochel in which he admitted his participation in the robbery of the bank and (2) with respect to the leading examination by the prosecutor of a hostile witness, Martin, an alleged accomplice, contrary to the teachings of Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). The trial court found that the oral incriminating statement was “freely, voluntarily and knowingly and intelligently given without any threats, promises, inducements, or improper influence of any kind,” and not as the result of or in response to alleged impermissible interrogation in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. It is clear that the court was fully cognizant of the decision in Douglas v. Alabama, supra, and that the prosecutor was not permitted to interrogate the alleged accomplice in such manner as to implicate Kochel, directly or inferentially, by either the questions or answers.

Kochel was positively identified by four employees of the bank as one of the two men who perpetrated the robbery. This evidence alone was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Upon consideration of the briefs, the record and oral arguments and perceiving no reversible error, the judgment below will be Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1978: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Sam Thomas Waldron568 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1978)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Sam Thomas Waldron568 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1978)

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
Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965) 1,542

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