Moore v. United States
Decision Date | 04 March 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 18867.,18867. |
Citation | 345 F.2d 97,120 US App. DC 203 |
Parties | Robert J. MOORE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Roger N. Boyd, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Eldon H. Crowell, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Miss Carol Garfiel, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and John E. Hogan, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant admitted his presence at the scene of the robbery for which he stands convicted. He offered a plausible explanation of his apparent complicity. But the jury found him guilty upon sufficient evidence after an exemplary charge on reasonable doubt.1 Although we affirm the conviction, two issues deserve comment.
Appellant contends that a question that the court asked him during his explanation of the circumstances of his arrest prejudiced his defense, by implying to the jury that the judge did not believe an important element of appellant's story.2 Whether the jury would have so understood the question is highly doubtful. And no objection was made. The question was a small incident in an otherwise sound trial. We do not regard it as plain error, Rule 52(b), FED.R. CRIM.P.
Appellant also complains about the court's delivery of the so-called Allen charge. After seven hours, the jury reported itself in "hopeless deadlock" and the judge called it back to the courtroom to deliver that charge.3 The jury returned its verdict in a little over thirty minutes. We do not agree with appellant that the judge must have known that the jury was unevenly divided and therefore should have refrained from delivering the charge. However, since the charge is potentially coercive, its content and manner of use deserve scrutiny.4 Here the trial judge adhered precisely to the summary of the approved charge given by the Supreme Court in Allen.5 He introduced the charge with only a reminder of the time already spent trying the case and of the Supreme Court's approval of the charge. There was no objection. In these circumstances, we do not think the impact of the introduction rendered the charge, as a whole, error.
Affirmed.
1 The charge, in pertinent part, was as follows:
Compare Jones & Campbell v. United States, 338 F.2d 553, decided Oct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Physicians Nat. House Staff Ass'n v. Fanning
... ... John H. FANNING et al ... No. 78-1209 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... District of Columbia Circuit ... Argued En Banc Oct. 9, 1979 ... Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellees ... ...
-
Posey v. United States
...Robinson v. United States, 345 F.2d 1007 (10 Cir. 1965); DeVault v. United States, 338 F.2d 179 (10 Cir. 1964); Moore v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 203, 345 F.2d 97 (1965). 5 O'Brien v. United States, 5 Cir., 411 F.2d 522 decided May 19, 1969; Kyle v. United States, 402 F.2d 443 (5 Cir......
-
U.S. v. Dale
...Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.09 at 46 (3d ed. 1978) (substantially identical language). In Moore v. United States, 345 F.2d 97, 98 & n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1965), we approved a similarly worded charge.54 The district court held: "I find for the purpose of the record that the pres......
-
U.S. v. Taylor
...reasonable doubt instructions based upon the Redbook definition and urge that this definition should be mandatory. In Moore v. United States, 345 F.2d 97 (D.C.Cir.1965), we did endorse an instruction on reasonable doubt virtually identical to the Redbook instruction rejected by the District......