TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Raymond Leo Cowles

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond Leo COWLES, Appellant

United States v. Cowles, 503 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 13, 1975
Docket
Nos. 1247, Docket 74-1416
Judges
Oakes, Frankel, Kelleher
Citations
503 F.2d 67

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the conviction.

Appellant, Raymond Leo Cowles, appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (a) and 2. He was tried before Lloyd F. MacMahon, Judge, sitting by designation, and a jury, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental Allen charge to the jury; in failing to ask certain questions of prospective jury members on voir dire; in failing to give a very specific instruction on 'the possible unreliability of eyewitness identifications ; and in permitting testimony of an admission made by appellant to a cellmate, without notification to defense counsel of such admission. The supplemental charge was not objected to and has regularly been sustained by this court. The questions proposed to be propounded to the jury were of a conclusory nature dealing with contingencies of a defendant’s not taking the stand and one juror believing that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, designed to elicit the jurors’ commitment to abstract propositions; as such, the trial court’s discretion in denying them was not abused. United States v. Colabella, 448 F.2d 1299, 1303 (2d Cir. 1971). The requested instruction on eyewitness identification was argumentative, but, absent argumentation, was given in substance. Ample opportunity (by way of a proffered but declined continuance) was afforded defense counsel to overcome whatever surprise was generated by the cellmate’s testimony as to appellant’s admission.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1978: 11979: 11980: 11992: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. William Thomas Gladney563 F.2d 491 (1st Cir. 1978)
  2. United States v. Williams493 F. Supp. 599 (D. Maryland 1979)
  3. United States v. Alessi638 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1980)
  4. United States v. Juana Suarez-Milian, United States of America v. Ruben Leon Guzman976 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1992)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Juana Suarez-Milian, United States of America v. Ruben Leon Guzman976 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1992)
  2. United States v. Alessi638 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1980)
  3. United States v. Williams493 F. Supp. 599 (D. Maryland 1979)
  4. United States v. William Thomas Gladney563 F.2d 491 (1st 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
United States v. Colabella, 448 F.2d 1299 (2d Cir. 1971) 27

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