Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: As to Rodriguez.

Text: Admitting the damaging effect of Rios' testimony as it involved Rodriguez, he nevertheless urges: There was no corroboration of the co-defendant's testimony and no proof in the case as a whole of any active participation, aiding and abetting by this defendant. As we read it, the record reveals otherwise. Rios' testimony, even with the legal caution and the careful scrutiny the law directs, was sufficient of itself to justify Rodriguez' conviction at the hands of the jury. But this was by no means the only evidence directed at him. He was seen at the luncheonette two weeks before the commission of the offense. He was present on the return trip from Chicago with Vega and Cruz when they talked at length about the contemplated holdup in the presence of the witness Calavira and Rodriguez signified his intention to participate. There is testimony he further discussed these plans in New York City with Vega and Cruz. He was present in the restaurant the night preceding the holdup with the other three defendants when the commission of the crime was again spoken of at length. It was then emphasized the victim had a lot of money    he cash checks for customers    he is good for shooting. He slept in his car under the railroad bridge with two other defendants the night before. Several witnesses saw his automobile on the morning in question at Second and Linden Streets about 7:30 A.M. one block from the luncheonette, and about 8 A.M., immediately prior to the robbery, his car was seen parked on Friends Avenue one-half block from the restaurant, where Cruz and Rios entered his car, which immediately drove off. Another witness who knew Rodriguez and his car said he saw this defendant driving in his car with a passenger on two occasions between 8 and 8:15 A.M. at the intersection of Third and Pearl Streets, one block from the luncheonette. Other witnesses saw Rodriguez and Cruz in a car with a third man in the back seat with his hat over his face after the holdup. A witness testified Rodriguez in New York admitted he was in trouble in New Jersey. There was a conflict between the stories of Rodriguez, Cruz and Rios concerning the trip from New York to Camden as to whose car they rode in and who was present, but that seems immaterial as all admitted being in Camden when the crime was committed. In view of the record, we can conceive little worth in the suggestion that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.