United States v. Owens, 72-1280.
Citation | 472 F.2d 780 |
Decision Date | 29 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1280.,72-1280. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William OWENS, Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Gary A. Eberhardt, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
David W. Harlan, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, LAY, Circuit Judge, and DURFEE, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Claims.*
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 26, 1973.
DURFEE, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Claims.
This is an appeal by defendant, William Owens, from a final judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, entered upon a jury verdict. The information charged unlawful possession of a United States Treasury check in the sum of $116.90, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 entitled, "Theft or receipt of stolen mail matter generally."
Prior to the jury trial, defendant filed two successive motions to suppress as evidence the stolen Treasury checks which the police had taken from defendant. Defendant alleged that this "seizure" was in contravention of his right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment.
A hearing was held on defendant's first motion to suppress evidence, at which three police officers and defendant testified. The evidence was summarized by the trial court in a memorandum in which the trial court stated that the initial issue was the credibility of the witnesses. Because of the importance of this issue and the facts involved, the trial court's two memoranda of the evidence and its findings are included herein, as follows:
The trial court resolved the issue of credibility of the witnesses against defendant, as follows:
* * * Defendant\'s demeanor and his response to questions indicated that defendant generally had vague, if any, recollections about the events leading to his arrest. In addition, defendant failed to call Lorenzo Perry as a witness. Defendant testified that Perry was within four feet of him throughout the alleged illegal search. Any testimony to corroborate defendant\'s testimony would have greatly aided the Court in this matter. The police officers testified that Perry was across the street at the parked car during the questioning. The unexplained failure of Perry to testify supports the inference that he was not where defendant said he was and/or he cannot substantiate defendant\'s testimony.
Following a denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, defendant was granted leave to produce supplemental evidence, which was summarized by the trial court as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Watson
...in criminal activity. The police had the right to stop the defendants. United States v. Santana, 485 F.2d 365 (2d Cir.); United States v. Owens, 472 F.2d 780 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 3019, 37 L.Ed.2d 1004; Diamond v. United States, 471 F.2d 771 (9th Cir.), cert. deni......
-
US v. Kikumura
...are uniquely the province of the fact-finder. Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914 (3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Owens, 472 F.2d 780, 784-784 (8th Cir.1973); Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1126, 93 S.Ct. 940, 35 L.Ed.2d ......
-
State v. Anderson
...State v. Booth, 202 Neb. 692, 276 N.W.2d 673; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917; United States v. Owens, 472 F.2d 780 (8th Cir., 1973); Commonwealth v. Jones, Finally, Tyler was entitled to consider the probability that the defendant was the robber because the a......
-
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau
...States ex rel. Tillery v. Cavell, 294 F.2d 12, 22 (3d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370U.S. 945 (1962); see, e.g., United States v. Owens, 472 F.2d 780, 784-85 (8th Cir. 1973); Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1126 (1973). Credibility determina......