From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Cowles

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Sep 10, 1974
503 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1974)

Opinion

No. 1247, Docket 74-1416.

Argued August 16, 1974.

Decided September 10, 1974. Certiorari Denied January 13, 1975.

Lee Clary, Watertown, N.Y., for appellant.

George H. Lowe, Asst. U.S. Atty. (James M. Sullivan, Jr., U.S. Atty., N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before OAKES, Circuit Judge, and FRANKEL and KELLEHER, District Judges.

Of the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California, respectively, sitting by designation.


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.


Summaries of

United States v. Cowles

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Sep 10, 1974
503 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1974)
Case details for

United States v. Cowles

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. RAYMOND LEO COWLES, APPELLANT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Sep 10, 1974

Citations

503 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1974)

Citing Cases

United States v. Williams

        Thus, the trial court has available to it a number of alternative and flexible remedies when a…

United States v. Gladney

The Government did not act in bad faith here — as, for example, by saving the tape for rebuttal, after its…