327 F.2d 983 - United States v. Bostic — 327 F.2d 983

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2004

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Robert L. Kreidler (court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Bell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio (Joseph P. Kinneary, U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before MILLER, PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured bank at Kirkersville, Ohio, and was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.

¶6The only contention made on this appeal is that it was prejudicial error on the part of the District Judge to permit the wife of a government witness to testify in rebuttal, over the objection of defense counsel, when she had been in the courtroom during the trial, in violation of the Court’s order directing a separation of witnesses, made at the request of Government counsel.

¶7Violation of the rule directing a separation of witnesses does not automatically bar a witness from testifying. It is a matter within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010; United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 853, C.A. 6th, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122; Easley v. United States, 261 F.2d 276, C.A. 5th; United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625, 631, C.A. 7th, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 1553, 8 L.Ed.2d 497.

¶8It does not appear that the violation of the rule was wilful or with the *984knowledge or consent of Government counsel. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong. We find no abuse of the Trial Judge’s discretion in permitting the witness to testify.

¶9The judgment is affirmed.