District court’s conviction of defendant for bank robbery and imposition of a 65 months’ imprisonment is affirmed where: 1) Rule 12(e) applies to identification testimony in court; 2) defendant cannot supply good cause for the purpose of Rule 12(e); and 3) a motion under section 2255 is the right way to obtain review of contentions that an attorney’s carelessness causes a waiver under Rule 12(e), but the record on direct appeal lacks the evidence needed to make such a decision.
Read US v. Cox, NO. 09-1258
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Decided February 9, 2010
Judges
Before: Easterbrook, Chief Judge, Manion and Cudahy, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
