Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Peter Anthony Cherico, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, - 462 F.2d 178
Joe D. Prickett, San Antonio, Tex. (Court Appointed), for defendant-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Wayne F. Speck, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Peter Anthony Cherico of the murder (in the second degree) of Lynda Yvonne Heishman, committed on the Fort Sam Houston Military Reservation. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111. Cherico was sentenced to life imprisonment, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4208(a) (2). He appeals.
It is now contended that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged offense was committed on the Military Reservation; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to connect the defendant with the commission of the homicide; and (3) although not objected to at the trial, error was committed in not applying the exclusionary rule to two law enforcement officers who testified in the case.
This case has had the thorough consideration which its gravity deserves, but we find nothing in the trial record which could possibly justify a reversal. The points raised on appeal, while arguable, under a wealth of well established judicial precedent are without merit.
It necessarily follows that the conviction must be, and it is
Affirmed.