UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES CARROLL WATKINS, 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 defendant's conviction for bank robbery should be affirmed because he failed to demonstrate prejudice from a joint trial and the prosecutor's remarks were proper rebuttal.
The defendant was convicted of bank robbery after a jury trial. He argued that the court should have sua sponte declared a severance and that the pros…
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 Rebuttal Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a conviction, by a jury, of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).1 We affirm the district court.2
While admitting that, through his attorney, he waived his right to a separate trial and consented to a trial with his co-defendant, defendant argues that the court had a sua sponte duty to declare a severance. Defendant has not demonstrated any “real prejudice” as a result of being tried with his codefendant. United States v. Boyd, 610 F. 2d 521, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1979). He merely argues that the codefendant testified that defendant Watkins was using drugs, and concludes that “the prejudice [from such testimony] is obvious.” Without a showing of clear prejudice and an abuse of discretion by the trial court, defendant cannot prevail with his argument. United States v. Jackson, 549 F. 2d 517, 523 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 1682, 52 L.Ed.2d 379 (1977).
Defendant next argues that he was deprived of due process by the prosecutor’s remarks about defendant’s drug dealings and philandering. As the government points out, defendant testified on his own behalf and thus made his truthfulness an issue. The government’s rebuttal argument was an effort to point out some parts of defendant’s testimony that were not truthful. We reject defendant’s argument that this was error. The district court is affirmed.
. Defendant was sentenced to six years.
. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1977)
- Dubuque Commc'ns Corp. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 430 U.S. 985 (U.S. 1977)
- Begley v. Califano, 430 U.S. 985 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1979)