Marcus v. United States
Decision Date | 09 November 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 6505,6508.,6505 |
Citation | 86 F.2d 854,66 App. DC 298 |
Parties | MARCUS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
John H. Wilson and Albert Lyman, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Leslie C. Garnett and Irvin Goldstein, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
An appeal from a conviction and sentence in a first degree murder case.
The appellants Willett Marcus and John Homer Cummings were convicted of murder in the first degree upon an indictment charging that on January 4, 1935, in the District of Columbia they deliberately and with premeditated malice, while perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate, the offense of robbery, did shoot and kill one Joseph R. Wushnak. The defendants pleaded not guilty and trial was had resulting in the conviction of both defendants. Sentence was imposed upon them, and this appeal was then taken. It appears that on January 4, 1935, and for some time prior thereto, Joseph R. Wushnak was employed by a provision company in the city of Washington, D. C., to sell and deliver meats and provisions to its customers. And that at about 7 o'clock p. m., January 4, aforesaid, Wushnak, accompanied by an assistant named Frank was engaged in delivering meats by means of a truck to various stores within the District; that soon after 7 o'clock p. m. of that day Wushnak and Frank in the course of their duties arrived at the corner of Tenth and B streets, N. E. in the city of Washington and parked their truck on the northeast corner of the street crossing. Wushnak then went into a store at one corner of the street operated by one Katz and Frank went to a store on another corner operated by one Cullen; Frank returned to the truck and obtained some meat which he took to Cullen's store. Wushnak then returned to the truck from Katz' store for the purpose of obtaining meat and when he returned to the store he was suffering from a gunshot wound freshly inflicted upon his body. Wushnak was removed to the hospital where he died on January 8th, following, as a result of the wound. No one saw the actual firing of the shot which caused Wushnak's death but the report of the pistol was heard by Frank at Cullen's store and by Katz at the store which Wushnak had just left and to which he returned immediately after the shooting. An investigation was immediately begun by police officials aided by the finding of a hat which had been dropped in the truck by the assailant, and on January 11th the appellants, Marcus and Cummings were taken into custody, charged with the crime. Their indictment and trial followed.
At the trial the government, among other things, offered in evidence certain statements signed by defendant Marcus relating to the crime, reading in part as follows:
The government also offered in evidence a statement signed by defendant Cummings which contained among others the following statements: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fuller v. United States
...to purposeful killings in the course of a felony. See Jordon v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 309, 87 F.2d 64 (1936); Marcus v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 298, 86 F.2d 854 (1936); Letter of Attorney General Cummings, December 30, 1938, to Senate Committee on the Judiciary, printed as an append......
-
Coleman v. United States
...has been caused by the application of the word "purposely" to murders committed in perpetrating another felony (Marcus v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 298, 86 F. 2d 854; Jordan v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 309, 87 F.2d 64). It would seem that this word has no proper function in connection wi......
-
Kinard v. United States, 6969.
...no evidence "relevant to the issue of manslaughter" or "fairly tending to bear upon" that issue. The same is true of Marcus v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 298, 86 F.2d 854. There the evidence showed that the accused was, at the moment of the homicide, armed with a gun and engaged in the perp......
-
United States v. Wharton
...132, 344 F.2d 508, 517 (1964). 11 Fisher v. United States, supra note 10, 328 U.S. at 472-473, 66 S.Ct. 1318; Marcus v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 298, 304, 86 F.2d 854, 860 (1936). See also the cases cited infra note 16. 12 See Fisher v. United States, supra note 10, 328 U.S. at 472-473, 6......