Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States v. Leandrew Henderson, Jr.
472 F.2d 157
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1973-01-25
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. Leandrew Henderson, Jr., was convicted of larceny and burglary on a United States Naval Air Base. Henderson and a companion entered the Naval *158 Base illegally; they were able to avoid detection as they made such entry. Later they were stopped while driving a vehicle the wrong way on a one-way street. When they were stopped, an officer sought to determine whether they had any credentials to show that they had made a legal entry onto the Base.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Leandrew Henderson, Jr.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON,472 F.2d 157(6th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LEANDREW HENDERSON, JR.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1524.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued December 5, 1972.
Decided January 25, 1973.
J.N. Raines, Asst. U.S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee; Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U.S. Atty., J.N. Raines, Asst. U.S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., on the brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK, Circuit Judge, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
[2] A second contention of appellant arises from the fact that on the day, before the case was to be submitted to the jury, appellant's co-defendant disappeared and as far as the record shows he is still a fugitive from justice. Appellant argues that a severance should have been granted when his co-defendant failed to appear. We do not believe that a severance was required at that time and for the Court to have declared a mistrial might indeed have resulted in a plea of double jeopardy had the government sought later to carry on the prosecution. The District Judge gave proper instruction to the jury, warning them that they were not to give any consideration to the fact that appellant's co-defendant was no longer present when the case was submitted to the jury.
[3] We find no error in the Court's handling of the matter. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 159