UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MARVIN SIMMONS, APPELLANT
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 trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or denying a continuance.
Defendant was convicted of violating the Dyer Act. He appealed, arguing the court improperly limited cross-examination of a government witness and den…
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 Continuance Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Simmons was convicted, following a trial to the court, of violating the Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312). On this appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, he urges two errors. Neither has merit.
First: The court acted well within its discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination of a government witness concerning the precise location on the automobile of the manufacturer’s “secret numbers” to which the witness resorted, in order to identify the vehicle as the one Simmons had stolen. In some circumstances, a limitation on such proposed cross-examination might constitute reversible error; but, as aptly stated in United States v. Williamson, 272 F. 2d 495 (5th Cir. 1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 920, 80 S.Ct. 672, 4 L.Ed.2d 740, “ . . . there is nothing [in this record] to indicate that the location of the serial number would be material or that by inspection and discovery of the number or the location the testimony of the agent might be impeached.”
Second: The same conclusion is warranted with respect to the district court’s denial of a continuance, sought on the day of trial, in order to permit Simmons to engage counsel of his own choosing. United States v. Deegan, 428 F. 2d 714 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 928, 91 S.Ct. 193, 27 L.Ed.2d 188, and see Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). The “reason” Simmons gave for desiring a change was specious and the record manifests that his appointed counsel afforded him competent and effective assistance at all stages of the matter. The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris, 501 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964)
- Porter v. United States, 400 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1970)
- Rapp v. Sigler, 400 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1970)
- United States ex rel. Robert Baskerville v. Deegan, 428 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1970)
- Williamson v. United States, 272 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Mohr v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 362 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1960)
- Owens v. McGee, 362 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1960)