365 F.2d 289 (3rd Cir. 1966), 15848, United States v. Hallman
|Citation:||365 F.2d 289|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America v. Terrell Henry HALLMAN, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||August 23, 1966|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Argued May 25, 1966.
Michael A. Querques, Orange, N.J. (Querques & Isles and Harvey Weissbard, Orange, N.J., of counsel and on the brief), for appellant.
Robert A. Baime, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J. (David M. Statz, Jr., U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, District Judge.
KALODNER, Circuit Judge.
The defendant, Hallman, was indicted on four counts charging bank robbery and possession, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a)-(d), arising out of the robbery, on January 6, 1965, of the New Jersey Bank and Trust Company, Allwood Office, Clifton, New Jersey.
Prior to trial, Hallman moved to suppress evidence, i.e., thirteen twenty-dollar bills, obtained from him allegedly as a result of an illegal arrest and search of his person on January 29, 1965, the date alleged in the possession count of the indictment. This motion was denied after hearing. At the trial, the questioned bills were received in evidence against Hallman, over objection. The jury found Hallman guilty on the count charging possession, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(c), and
not guilty on the other counts of the indictment.
On this appeal from the judgment of conviction entered on the jury verdict, and sentence, Hallman reasserts the illegality of the manner in which th twenty-dollar bills were obtained from him. He further complains that (a) although in its answer to a bill of particulars the government denied that it had any confessions or admissions from him, it was permitted to introduce into evidence an exculpatory statement made by him which the government contended was false; (b) his identification by the robbed bank's employees was too speculative to be admitted; (c) remarks made by the prosecuting attorney were prejudicial; (d) the trial judge did not fairly state the evidence in answer to a question submitted by the jury during its deliberations; and (e) the evidence was inadequate.
We address ourselves to the question raised initially by the motion to suppress. On this score, we are of the opinion that the motion should have been granted and the evidence illegally obtained should not have been used against Hallman at the trial.
The critical events occurred on January 29, 1965. On that day, and for some time previous, Hallman had the status of a parolee under the New Jersey penal system...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP