ROBERT SWITAJ
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial due to his attorney's actions.
Appellant was convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to 15 years. He appealed, claiming his trial attorney failed to seek a change of venue and call …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair And Impartial Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Following trial by jury, appellant was found guilty of bank robbery in the course of which he put in jeopardy the life of a person by the use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of Section 2113(d), Title 18 U.S.Code. He received a sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
On this appeal it is contended that appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because of the failure of his trial attorney (1) to move for a change of venue, and (2) to use as a witness another defendant who had pleaded guilty to the indictment and who, it is claimed, had given the trial attorney a written statement that appellant was in no way a participant in the robbery.
We find no evidence whatsoever to support appellant’s contention that he was entitled to a change of venue, or that his attorney would have been justified in making such a motion. There is no merit in this contention.
The written statement of the other defendant was not made a part of the record, but even assuming that appellant’s trial attorney had in his possession such a statement, the, decision of the trial attorney not to use. such a witness, without more, does not constitute lack of due process of law or sustain appellant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial. O’Malley v. United States, 6 Cir., 285 F. 2d 733.
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.