Maxie Carter, Sr., Gary Reddish and Preston Johnson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. William Edmund Hindmarsh, United States of America v. Charles Edward Hindmarsh (6th Cir. 1968)
- Colebrook v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- United States v. Tanner (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1967)
- United States v. Joe Louis Miller (4th Cir. 1965)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the several grounds of appeal in this case. We conclude that appellants’ criticism of the trial court’s refusal to sever the Johnson case from that of the other appellants because of Johnson’s having made the damaging extra judicial admission is not well taken. The experienced trial judge repeatedly took effective protective measures to assure that Johnson’s statement would be considered by the jury only in connection with his guilt or innocence.
We find that under the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278, any residual recollections the jury may have held of Johnson’s reference to the other defendants would be without prejudice to the other defendants because it would be cumulative to other evidence which was sufficient to tie them into the conspiracy and to warrant the jury’s finding of guilt as to each.
We have considered the other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
The judgments are
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.