Bundy v. United States, 10825
| Decision Date | 08 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10825,11024.,10825 |
| Citation | 90 US App. DC 12,193 F.2d 694 |
| Parties | BUNDY v. UNITED STATES. CRAIG v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant Leroy Bundy.
Mr. Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant James E. Craig, Jr.
Mr. Joseph A. Sommer, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Arthur J. McLaughlin and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Charles M. Irelan, appointed U. S. Atty., subsequent to the argument in this case, also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 24, 1952. See 72 S.Ct. 638.
These appeals were consolidated for hearing. Each of the appellants seeks reversal of his convictions of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a deadly weapon without a license (§ 22-2901, D.C.Code (1940); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Supp.1951); § 22-3204, D.C.Code (1940, Supp. VII)). On cross-examination of a principal witness for the prosecution, counsel for one of the appellants1 asked the witness whether during the years 1938 through 1941 she was not convicted several times of prostitution and vagrancy. In sustaining objection to this question, the court advised counsel that he might ask some particular question but not such a general one. Defense counsel did not pursue the subject further, but proceeded to question the witness on a different point. It was well within the discretion of the court to require a more precise question. If counsel desired to go further into the subject matter he should have reframed his question.
It is also urged that the court erred in not requiring the production under subpoena of the arrest record of the same witness. The subpoena was in form a subpoena to testify, with a notation in script regarding the arrest record of the witness. Assuming this made it a subpoena duces tecum, the officer of the Metropolitan Police Department who responded testified that he had no arrest record of the witness in question by the name contained in the subpoena, did not have any record under any other name and did not know that she used two other names mentioned to him by counsel. Assuming, further, that there was an arrest record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jencks v. United States
...are United States v. Sansone, 2 Cir., 231 F.2d 887; Montgomery v. United States, 5 Cir., 203 F.2d 887, 893 894; and Bundy v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 12, 193 F.2d 694. 8. The trial court is the appropriate forum to consider the possible prejudicial effect of the error. See, e.g., Comm......
-
United States v. Gordon
...156 A.L.R. 337; U. S. v. Toner, D.C.E.D.Pa., 77 F.Supp. 908, 917, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 140, 143. Cf. Bundy v. U. S., D. C.Cir., 193 F.2d 694; Marin v. U. S., 6 Cir., 10 F.2d 271. Some of these cases were decided before the Criminal Rules of Procedure were promulgated ......
-
Muehlman v. Keilman, 370S73
...Ind. 122, 135 N.E. 481; City of Elkhart v. Witman (1890), 122 Ind. 538, 23 N.E. 796. As to broad questions see Bundy v. United States (1951), 90 U.S.App.D.C. 12, 193 F.2d 694, cert. den. 343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 638, 96 L.Ed. 1326. As to narrative answers, see Temple v. State (1964), 245 Ind.......