TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Herman Olin Welch

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Herman Olin WELCH, Appellant

United States v. Welch, 496 F.2d 861 (4th Cir. 1974)
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
April 23, 1974
Docket
No. 73-2041
Judges
Bryan, Winter, Butzner
Citations
496 F.2d 8611974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9025

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Herman Olin Welch protests that he was prejudiced because of an experiment the jury initiated and conducted during its deliberations and so his bank robbery conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 , should be vacated. One member produced a roll of adhesive tape, like that allegedly used by the defendant as a partial disguise in the holdup, while another juror simulated its use.

On defendant’s motion for a new trial the District Judge, sensitive of the attaintment of a verdict by the injection into the jury room of proof dehors the record, declared the rehearsal to be misconduct and an error in trial. United States v. Beach, 296 F.2d 153, 158 (4 Cir. 1961); Cf. United States v. Hephner, 410 F.2d 930, 936 (7 Cir. 1969). Further, however, he appraised it as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

In his assessment, the Judge cautiously assayed the evidence, both in its detail and in its entirety, and found )Yelch overwhelmed in guilt. These conclusions were accurate applications of authentic measures. Chapman v. California, supra, p. 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

Upon consideration of the record and argument of counsel, orally and on brief, we find appellant’s assignments of error meritless, and affirm his conviction on the opinion of the District Judge. United States v. Welch, 377 F.Supp. 367 (1973).

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11977: 11979: 31982: 11994: 119752026peak 1979 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. George William Miller v. James L. Harvey, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina566 F.2d 879 (4th Cir. 1977)
  2. Barker v. State594 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1979)
  3. Simon v. Kuhlman488 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
  4. Simon v. Kuhlman549 F. Supp. 1202 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
  5. Richardson v. State of Maryland398 F. Supp. 425 (D. Maryland 1975)
  6. State v. Eison525 N.W.2d 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)

Most recent

  1. State v. Eison525 N.W.2d 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)
  2. Simon v. Kuhlman549 F. Supp. 1202 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
  3. Simon v. Kuhlman488 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
  4. United States v. Pjecha7 M.J. 455 (1979) · Dissent
  5. Barker v. State594 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1979)
  6. George William Miller v. James L. Harvey, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina566 F.2d 879 (4th Cir. 1977)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) 19,172
United States v. Beach, 296 F.2d 153 (4th Cir. 1961) 36
United States v. Hephner, 410 F.2d 930 (7th Cir. 1969) 35
United States v. Welch, 377 F. Supp. 367 (D.S.C. 1973) 5

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