United States v. John Horace Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. John Horace Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jeffrey Allen Pendegraph and Clifford Eugene Mickels (ca11, 1986-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeffrey Allen Pendegraph and Clifford Eugene Mickels
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Hall v. Wainwright, 559 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164, 166 (5th Cir.1972); Posey v. United States, 416 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Herbert J. Lewis and Vernon Abrahams
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
“A codefendant’s confession is admissible in a joint trial if references to the other codefendants are deleted.” United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164, 165 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1009 , 93 S.Ct. 452 , 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Juan Ramon Hernandez, United States of America v. Jesus Antonio Gastelum, Charged as Raymond Sepulveda Mendoza, United States of America v. Jorge Mejia, United States of America v. Javier Gomez
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Roach, 590 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Where a statement does not allude to the defendant, White v. United States, 415 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969), Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 993 , 90 S.Ct. 1128 , 25 L.Ed.2d 400 (1970), or where all references to the defendant have been deleted, United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1009 , 93 S.Ct. 452 , 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972), his right of confrontation is not abridged."); Hodges v. Rose, 570 F.2d 643 , 648 n. 10 (6th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 436 U.S. 909 , 98 S.Ct. 2243 , 56 L.Ed.2d 408 (1978). 32 The appell…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hernandez
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Roach, 590 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Where a statement does not allude to the defendant, White v. United States, 415 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 993 , 90 S.Ct. 1128 , 25 L.Ed.2d 400 (1970), or where all references to the defendant have been deleted, United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1009 , 93 S.Ct. 452 , 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972), his right of confrontation is not abridged.”); Hodges v. Rose, 570 F.2d 643 , 648 n. 10 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 909 , 98 S.Ct. 2243 , 56 L.Ed.2d 408 (1978).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Roberto Vasquez and Ernesto Chavez-Cortinas
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5 Cir. 1972); Posey v. United States, 416 F.2d 545 (5 Cir. 1969).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Robert Shelran Hamilton, Edward Donald Hamilton, and Clarence Brantley
5th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164, 165 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Mayr
S.D. Fla. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Gray, 462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Sims, 434 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Horace GRAY Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
71-3279.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 26, 1972.
462 F.2d 164
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8788
J. Garrison Thompson, Selma, Ala. (Court-appointed), for Gray., T. G. Gayle, Selma, Ala. (Court-appointed), for Johnson., John A. Lockett, Jr., Selma, Ala. (Court-appointed) for Span., C. S. White-Spunner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Wisdom, Thornberry, Godbold.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The defendants, John Horace Gray, David Earl Johnson, and Samuel Span, were convicted of (1) robbing the Watkins Banking Company of Faunsdale, Alabama, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and (2) of assaulting and putting in jeopardy the lives of persons by use of a dangerous weapon while committing the bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Court-appointed counsel ably represented the defendants on appeal and in the district court, where there was a jury trial for three days. We affirm.

The grant or denial of a motion for severance under Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be overturned on appeal unless there is an affirmative showing of abuse of discretion. Opper v. United States, 1953, 348 U.S. 84, 95, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; Gordon v. United States, 5 Cir.1971, 438 F.2d 858, 878-879; Tillman v. United States, 5 Cir.1971, 406 F.2d 930, 934-935, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 2143, 23 L.Ed.2d 742.

A eodefendant’s confession is admissible in a joint trial if references to the other codefendants are deleted. United States v. Kershner, 5 Cir.1970, 432 F.2d 1066, 1071-1072; Posey v. United States, 5 Cir.1969, 416 F.2d 545, 551; United States v. Sims, 5 Cir.1970, 434 F.2d 258, 259; White v. United States, 5 Cir.1969, 415 F.2d 292, 293-294. The trial judge carefully reviewed Span’s confession in camera and made extensive deletions of references to the co-defendants. For example, he required the deletion of any reference to the number of bank robbers. Here[*166] there was clear and convincing eye-witness identification of the defendants and such overwhelming evidence of guilt as to support a conclusion that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in denying a severance or admitting Span’s censored confession.

We have examined the photographs which were exhibited to the bank employees in two groups . of ten each. We find that the witnesses’ in-court identification of the defendants was not tainted by any impermissible selection or spread of the photographs likely to suggest mis-identifieation. See United States v. Sutherland, 5 Cir.1970, 428 F. 2d 1152.

The Court has considered all of the other issues raised on appeal. There is no merit to them.

The judgment is affirmed.