Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald

United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald, 441 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1971)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1971-04-20
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: MacDonald appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for bank robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). We affirm. First, MacDonald argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to require the government to conduct a pretrial lineup. The decision on such a motion is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Craig Wayne MacDonald. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 10 opinions

UNITED STATES v. MacDONALD,441 F.2d 259(9th Cir. 1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Wayne MacDONALD,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-1184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 20, 1971.

William James Zumwalt, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., Robert H. Filsinger, Chief, Crim. Div., Howard B. Frank, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

MacDonald appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for bank robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d). We affirm.

First, MacDonald argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to require the government to conduct a pretrial lineup. The decision on such a motion is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Williams (9 Cir. 1970),436 F.2d 1166. "Absent abuse of that discretion resulting in procedure `so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification' as to amount to a denial of due process of law * * * we should not question the trial judge's ruling."Williams,supra, 436 F.2d at 1168-1169. There is no showing of abuse of discretion here.

Second, MacDonald's argument that the trial judge unduly restricted his cross-examination of the identifying witness is wholly without support in the record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.