Locken v. United States, 21478.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21478.,21478. |
| Citation | 383 F.2d 340 |
| Parties | Herman Marion LOCKEN, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David K. Yamakawa, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Gerald W. Hess, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BELLONI, District Judge.
For his alleged participation in a bank robbery, appellant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). A jury trial resulted in his conviction on both charges, and he appeals. We reverse.
Numerous errors are specified. They were committed by counsel, not the court. Considered separately, no one of them would require reversal. Considered as a whole, they do. The district judge struggled mightily to conduct the trial proceedings in a manner comporting with traditional ideals of federal justice. He was thoroughly frustrated. The trial became disordered, confused, and undignified.
The admitted robber, one Kidd, testified that appellant did not participate in the planning or commission of the robbery and that he did not drive the automobile by which Kidd made temporary escape. The prosecution undertook to prove the contrary, principally by oral declarations which government witnesses testified that the appellant and Kidd had made. As these witnesses were examined, the prosecuting attorney repeatedly suggested his desired answers. Time after time, objections to the leading questions were sustained, yet the prosecutor persevered. Ultimately, the court was required to find him contemptuous, stating
The Government sought to introduce evidence of oral statements claimed to have been made by Kidd approximately six months before the date of the robbery. When inquiry concerning these statements was directed to one witness, the court sustained appellant's objection. The ruling was apparently based upon the fact that since the accused was not shown to have been then connected with the declarant, the proposed evidence was immaterial and prejudicial. The prosecutor persisted, attempting, thereafter, to elicit the same rejected evidence from two additional witnesses. The attempts were made in the presence of the jury. The import of the excluded testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Torres
...prosecutor persisted despite warnings in asking leading questions during the examination of the victim. As stated in Locken v. United States, 383 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1967): The prosecution undertook to prove the contrary, principally by oral declarations which government witnesses testified ......
-
State v. Marrero
...omitted.) State v. Dews , 87 Conn. App. 63, 86, 864 A.2d 59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901, 876 A.2d 13 (2005).6 See Locken v. United States , 383 F.2d 340, 341 (9th Cir. 1967) (prosecutor engaged in multiple improprieties, including continuing to ask leading questions despite sustained objec......
-
United States v. Tou Thao
...“improperly expressed his own personal opinion, unsupported by evidence, as to” one witness's motivation for exculpating the defendant. Id. at 341. Because the case against the defendant was not “very strong, ” the appellate court concluded that the “cumulative effect of many prejudicial ir......
-
U.S. v. Blackburn
...995 F.2d 1068 ... NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Garry BLACKBURN, ... ...