United States v. Paul Everett Shaver
511 F.2d 933
4th Cir.
1975
Check Treatment

*2 failing to instruct jury the to disregard Snyder, Keith Atty., U. on brief S. S. government’s the impeach efforts to the appellee. for accused’s credibility through questions Asheville, Gilbert, C., Clarence N. N. relating prior conviction pending ap appellant. on for brief peal. Soles, United States v. (2d 1973); 105 United States v. Wil RUSSELL, Before FIELD and WID- liams, 484 F.2d 428 Unit ENER, Judges. ed v. Empire States Packing Co., 174 F.2d 16 Cir. 1949), PER CURIAM. cert. denied 337 959, 69 U.S. (1949). S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 1758 gunman On December a lone See, also, 609(e), Rules of approximately height six feet and Evidence for the United States District weighing pounds about 200 the robbed and Magistrates. Courts In any event, West Office Wachovia Bank and the overwhelming evidence of petition Company, Morganton, Trust North Caro- guilt er’s convinces us that the failure to $6,000. approximately lina of Ev- so instruct the jury, all, if error at Shaver, erett the appellant, was tried beyond harmless a reasonable doubt. and convicted a bill of indictment Green, F.2d 551 charging 18, U.S.C., violation of Title 2113(a), 2113(b), 2113(d). Sections The merged district court one counts With respect to the district into two count and sentenced the judge’s inadvertent misstatement re appellant years to a term of fifteen the garding exact at location which the confinement.1 On direct counsel appeal, defendant gotten contended he had into petitioner following raises the four car, get-away the agree we with govern points for error: ment counsel that the error was harm less, (1) particularly Did trial in view of the failing the court err in fact that judge gave the trial ignore instruct the re- curative instructions reminding the attorney they that marks of district ad- were Columbia, expiration begin District Court South Carolina in was to at the 1. This sentence imposed robbery. in the United the fall 1973 for bank of a sentence fact; request defense counsel was made to the that made triers sole charge; that the made ' totality read in its made position This is a matter of clear the accused’s was never answered. abundantly nothing just whatsoever to do tactics and could as well have he had robbery. purpose drawing United States for the of not *3 with the jury’s again, 429 F.2d 120 attention to the matter as Graydon, was, 52(b), probably any Fed.R.Crim.P. it as for other reason. Rule by We are advised the United States peti merit is Likewise without Attorney argument on oral that it is not the trial court’s fail tioner’s claim that district, customary in that as it is in a detailed and ure to include some, evi- law of circumstantial evi charge on the objection dence as to which an was sus- objections The defense made no dence. entirely disregarded. tained must be requests for addi merits, As to the instructions were made as re tional Potts, 1970), 420 F.2d 964 as- 30, by (App. Rule Fed.R.Crim.P. quired suming argument directly is not Furthermore, B., 235). ad T. point, strong is a indication that the rule stated this court’s rule that cir equately is that a question in this circuit such may support a ver cumstantial evidence There, the district court guilty though even it does not dict of charged disregard the mat- hypothesis con every exclude reasonable ter. 16 A.L.R.3d 726 contains an annota- B., (App. with innocence. T. sistent giving a tion breakdown of various 216), Chappell, v. point on the courts at hand. 609(e) of the Federal Rules of Finally, appellant argues Evidence, submit, pro- I does not affect granted that the trial should have ceedings brought like those before us be- motion to set the verdict days January after P.L. fore 180 93-595, jur on the aside basis that three of the Congress, 93d 137. 43 L.W. during saw the accused in handcuffs ors at a the trial and noon recess.

judge thoroughly questioned the three

jurors correctly determined prejudice. The

there was no “brief an in handcuffs is

sighting” of accused prejudicial. se per

Accordingly, after careful considera- by filed tion of the record and briefs Jr., Ljepava, and Chris LJEPAVA Nick counsel, judgment we affirm the Appellants, Plaintiffs court. al., INC., PROPERTIES, et M. L. S. C. WIDENER, (concur- Judge Appellees. Defendants ring): 73-1707, 73-1756. Nos. I of the court opinion concur in United States Court point (1) respecting as except Ninth concerning previous convic- pending, which an was appeal tion for I and as to that I concur the result. not reach the

would merits. judge properly

The district sustained previ-

an as to a appeal

ous conviction for which an for mistrial was

pending. No motion