Bates v. United States, 21434.

Decision Date13 December 1968
Docket NumberNo. 21434.,21434.
Citation132 US App. DC 36,405 F.2d 1104
PartiesGeorge W. BATES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Nelson Deckelbaum, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.

Mr. Robert S. Bennett, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURGER, Circuit Judge.

BURGER, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was convicted on two counts of housebreaking, 22 D.C.Code 1801, and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, 22 D.C.Code 502, and appeals on the ground that his identification by one of the complaining witnesses was the result of an unnecessarily suggestive confrontation under Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

The complaining witnesses, two women, established at trial that at approximately 11:30 P.M. on July 12, 1966, Appellant allegedly entered their 3rd floor apartment on New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. One woman had retired at 11:00 P.M. and her roommate at approximately 11:30. Shortly thereafter, the latter noticed a figure in their living room and asked who was there; this awakened the other woman. The intruder responded: "Don't move or I'll shoot." The intruder entered the bedroom which had no lights on but was well illuminated by a street light which was shining into the bedroom, and ordered one of the women to get into her bed and the other to cover her head with the sheet. At knife point he committed indecent assaults on the second woman which continued until the victim began to scream; she then threw the attacker's knife out an open window. The attacker at once fled. The screams attracted a police officer who observed a man running from the apartment. The officer ordered him to halt but was unable to apprehend him.

This man was then observed by two other officers a short distance from the scene; they later positively identified him as Appellant and specifically noticed a "white cloth wrapped around his hand." This coincided with the complaining witness' statement that her assailant "had a bandage on his left hand." These officers were likewise unable to overtake and apprehend the fleeing suspect, although they passed this information to still another officer, Bloodworth, who was patrolling the area in a scout car. The latter testified that he had seen a man corresponding to the description of the suspect walking through an alley earlier and that his attention had been drawn to "what appeared to be a white bandage — handkerchief" on his left hand. Moments later, at approximately 11:45 P.M., Bloodworth came upon Appellant on the porch of a nearby house at which time he took him into custody.1 At the time of his arrest Appellant did not have the white handkerchief or bandage around his hand.

Appellant was immediately returned to the vicinity of the crime and placed in a patrol wagon. Shortly after 12:00, at most 30 minutes after the attack, the complaining witnesses were asked to come down to the street in front of their apartment and view the Appellant who was the sole occupant of the vehicle. One of the girls could not positively identify him although she said he had the same general appearance as the intruder. The other girl, who had a much better view of the assailant2 during his close range advances and contact with her and whose identification was introduced at trial, specifically identified Appellant as her attacker. During the attack, this complainant had seen the assailant under the light of a small firelight in an adjoining room and the illumination from a street...

To continue reading

Request your trial
210 cases
  • U.S. v. Singleton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 15, 1983
    ...420 F.2d 1283, 1290 (D.C.Cir.1969) (showup taking place four hours after the crime held impermissible). Cf. Bates v. United States, 405 F.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (D.C.Cir.1968) (showup occurring "at most 30 minutes after the attack" held permissible).64 See text at p. 1177 supra.65 See Buckhout,......
  • Foster v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 1974
    ...U.S.App.D.C. 279, 383 F.2d 206 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 964, 88 S.Ct. 1069, 19 L.Ed.2d 1164 (1968); and Bates v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104 (1968), '. . . (I)t is not improper for the police promptly to display a freshly apprehended suspect for identification by......
  • Perryman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 16, 1971
    ...'Right to Counsel at Scene of the Crime Identifications,' 117 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 916. In Bates v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104 (1968), the court, in an opinion by the now Chief Justice Burger, rejected the claim that the patrol-wagon identification wa......
  • State v. York
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1974
    ...of the crime is also highly significant. As then Judge Burger once stated in the frequently cited case of Bates v. United States, 1968, 132 U.S.A.pp.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104: 'There is no prohibition against a viewing of a suspect alone in what is called a 'one-man showup' when this occurs ne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT