Fennel v. United States, 17697.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17697.,17697. |
| Citation | 320 F.2d 784,116 US App. DC 62 |
| Parties | Louis FENNEL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John F. Donelan, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. William L. Slover, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by the court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Gerald A. Messerman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and William H. Collins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAHY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is from a conviction of robbery, 22 D.C.Code § 2901, on a trial before a judge, trial by jury having been waived.1 The defendant sought to convince the judge that the charge against him was due to a mistaken identification, but the evidence against him is strong, and we affirm. But we note that the trial judge erred in developing the fact — with the prosecution commendably not encouraging him to do so — that defendant at the time of his apprehension was found to have in his possession an automobile driver's license bearing a name other than his own. Were the trial before a jury, or were the evidence of guilt less strong, we would feel obliged to reverse, since the driver's license had nothing to do with the case on trial.
Affirmed.
1 Defendant, now the appellant, was a juvenile. The Juvenile Court had waived jurisdiction to the District Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Council
...v. United States, 427 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 252, 27 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970); Fennel v. United States, 320 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1963); United States v. Harris, 381 F.Supp. 1095 (E.D.Pa. 1974).7 This evidence was highly inculpatory because sixty-five dollar......
-
Banks v. United States
...evidence in making their findings. Riley v. District of Columbia, 207 A.2d 121, 122 (D.C. 1965), citing Fennel v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 320 F.2d 784 (D.C.Cir. 1963); Teate v. United States, 297 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1961). See also United States, ex rel. Placek v. Illinois, 546 F......
-
Sellman v. United States, 10050.
...requires a new trial, however, only if the accused was thereby prejudiced. D.C. Code 1973, § 11-721(e); Fennel v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 320 F.2d 784 (1963). Appellant asserts that he was prejudiced by the implication of Simmons' testimony, taken as a whole, that appellant was ......
-
Riley v. District of Columbia
...a showing of prejudice, the introduction of incompetent or irrelevant evidence does not require a reversal. Fennel v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 320 F2d 784 (1963); United States v. Cain, 298 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 370 U.S. 902, 82 S.Ct. 1250, 8 L.Ed.2d 400; Teate v......