United States v. Joshua Ashley Tatro, 452 F.2d 1207, 2d Cir. (1972)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 2

452 F.

2d 1207

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


v.
Joshua Ashley TATRO, Appellant.
No. 103, Docket 71-1092.

United States Court of Appeals,


Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 9, 1971.
Decided Dec. 9, 1971.
Certiorari Denied March 27, 1972.
See 92 S.Ct. 1301.

William J. Knight, Burlington, Vt., for defendant-appellant.


David A. Gibson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (George W. F. Cook, U. S. Atty., D.
Vermont, on the brief), for appellee.
Before FEINBERG, MULLIGAN and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Joshua Tatro appeals from a judgment of conviction for bank


robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(d). He was tried before Chief Judge
Bernard J. Leddy and a jury in the United States District Court for the District
of Vermont, together with his brother George Tatro and Calvin Trudo. Joshua
Tatro and his brother were each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment; Trudo
received an 18 year sentence. All three defendants appealed, but Joshua Tatro's
appeal was severed. On September 21, 1971, this court affirmed the
convictions of George Tatro and Trudo. United States v. Trudo and Tatro, 449
F.2d 649 (1971). Thereafter, this appeal by Joshua Tatro was heard. We affirm
his conviction.

The facts of this case, as well as a discussion of most of the legal issues
presented for review, may be found in our earlier decision. To the extent that
decision is applicable to this appeal, we adhere to it. We note, in particular, that
although the bulk of the evidence against Joshua Tatro, like the others, was

circumstantial, it was nonetheless clearly sufficient to sustain his conviction. In


fact, the Government's case against this appellant was particularly strong since
it included appellant's admission to Archambault, a key government witness,
that appellant had robbed the bank. Appellant makes an additional argument
based on Archambault's testimony regarding an admission by co-defendant
Trudo and the court's limiting of the cross-examination of Archambault to his
redacted testimony only. See 449 F.2d at 653. Appellant claims that he was
thus cut off from asking Archambault whether Trudo implicated appellant
when Trudo indicated who would help in the robbery. The desired answer
would be "No." It is not clear, however, whether the court's restriction on
mentioning co-defendants would have extended to a question focussed solely
on the involvement of the defendant actually doing the cross-examining. In any
event, appellant failed to ask Chief Judge Leddy whether such a question would
be permitted.
3

The remaining arguments of appellant are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

You might also like