Gregory v. United States, 5324.
| Citation | 271 A.2d 791 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5324.,5324. |
| Parties | Maurice Clifton GREGORY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.
Jerome Wiener, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Guy H. Cunningham, III, Ruth R. Banks and James F. Flanagan, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FICKLING, KERN and YEAG-LEY, Associate Judges.
The appellant, Maurice Gregory, was charged with unlawful possession of heroin,1 and following a trial by the court on April 24, 1970, was sentenced to one year in jail. At the time of the offense, appellant resided in a Department of Corrections Halfway House in the District of Columbia. Upon returning from work to the Halfway House on January 27, 1970, he was confronted with the fact that a recent urine test had indicated the presence in his system of quinine, an excipient commonly used with heroin. It was thereupon determined that appellant had three capsules containing a useable amount of heroin on his person. On this appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to afford him a knowledgeable waiver of his right to a trial by jury.
This case first came on for hearing on March 26, 1970, at which time appellant requested a continuance in order to locate witnesses whose names and addresses he could not detail with any certainty. Although appellant apparently had not communicated with his counsel in this regard since January 29th, the court granted him a continuance until April 24th. On that date appellant again requested a continuance. Appellant was still unable to identify with particularity any of the witnesses he was seeking. Defense counsel had indicated that he was ready for trial when appellant requested the continuance. The trial court then sent the matter of a second continuance to the assignment branch of the court where it was denied. We do not believe that this record reflects any abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in denying appellant a second continuance.
Nor do we believe that the trial court erred in accepting appellant's waiver of a jury trial. On April 24th, when this case first came up for trial, the trial judge asked defense counsel: "Will this be a jury trial?" Counsel replied: Counsel also added, "He seems very determined about it." Following a luncheon recess, the Court remarked: "There is no jury present." Appellant then replied: "I prefer it, unless it is necessary." His counsel then said: "Defendant withdraws his jury demand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tibbs v. State, 472A196
...262 So.2d 772, cert. den. 288 Ala. 751, 262 So.2d 776; People v. Rodgers (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 507, 276 N.E.2d 504; Gregory v. United States (D.C.Ct.App.1970), 271 A.2d 791. This is not a case involving dementia or illiteracy or one in which the experience of the defendant with the law is 's......
-
LOPEZ v. U.S.
...Banks had sent out messages more readily reconcilable in result than in spirit, our court revisited the issue in Gregory v. United States, 271 A.2d 791 (D.C. 1970) (per curiam). In that case, defense counsel informed the judge that Gregory insisted on having a nonjury trial. Gregory confirm......
-
Hawkins v. United States
...omitted).] Since Jackson, we have upheld procedures somewhat less ideal than those suggested therein. Thus, in Gregory v. United States, D.C.App., 271 A.2d 791 (1970), while noting the failure to follow the Jackson mandate, we nonetheless affirmed a jury trial waiver where the record clearl......
-
In re Tinney
...to the applicable rule are not present. Our earlier cases, Payne v. United States, 292 A.2d 800 (D.C. 1972) and Gregory v. United States, 271 A.2d 791 (D.C. 1970) (per curiam), due to their brevity, shed little light on the situation at 4. We emphasize that our holding does not endorse the ......