Unpublished Disposition, 865 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1988)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 865 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1988)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Roger Lee STRICKLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-5344.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Oct. 17, 1988.Decided Dec. 19, 1988.

Before FERGUSON, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Roger Lee Strickland appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting armed robbery of a bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2(a). Strickland contends that the District Court erred in refusing to voir dire potential jurors regarding their attitudes toward eyewitness identification.

We affirm the judgment. Voir dire was not required because the favoring eyewitness testimony is not a recognized form of prejudice, nor has Strickland shown that his proffered questions would have identified an actual bias in this area. See United States v. Jones, 722 F.2d 528, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 1973).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.