Thomas v. District of Columbia, 6880.
Decision Date | 19 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 6880.,6880. |
Citation | 90 F.2d 424,67 App. DC 179 |
Parties | THOMAS et al. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Frederick A. Ballard and Samuel Levine, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Elwood H. Seal, Vernon E. West, and James W. Lauderdale, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
By separate informations filed in the Police Court of the District of Columbia it was charged that the plaintiffs in error on June 27, 1936, "in the District of Columbia aforesaid, and on Georgia Avenue, north west, did then and there throw, push, cast, deposit, drop, scatter, distribute and leave certain handbills, paper, circulars, on said street, and in a place where from the same is were likely to be taken up by the wind and scattered in the street contrary to and in violation of the Police Regulations in such case made and provided, and constituting a law of the District of Columbia." The police regulation in question provides as follows:
Police Regulations of the District of Columbia, Art. III, Sec. 8 The "places designated in section 1" referred to are as follows: "any street, avenue, alley, highway, footway, sidewalk, parking, or other public space in the District of Columbia." Police Regulations of the District of Columbia, Art. III, Sec. 1. Section 8 of Article III of the Police Regulations was promulgated by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia under D.C.Code (1929) tit. 20, § 32; 24 Stat. 368, § 1, authorizing the Commissioners:
"to make, modify, and enforce usual and reasonable police regulations in and for said District as follows:
* * *
Although the plaintiffs in error were separately charged, they were jointly tried. At the trial evidence was introduced on the part of the District of Columbia through a police officer who, according to the bill of exceptions, testified as follows:
Thereupon the District of Columbia rested its case, and after denial of a motion for a directed verdict, with exception taken in their behalf, the plaintiffs in error commenced their defense and the following took place:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neufield v. United States
...58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Powell v. Alabama, 1932, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527; Thomas v. District of Columbia, 1937, 67 App.D.C. 179, 90 F.2d 424. Johnson v. Zerbst, recognizing the vigor of the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment that in criminal prosecutions, "......
-
45 593 Herring v. New York 8212 6587
...Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 2077 (1957). 9 See United States v. Walls, 443 F.2d 1220 (CA6 1971); Thomas v. District of Columbia, 67 App.D.C. 179, 90 F.2d 424 (1937); United States ex rel. Spears v. Johnson, 327 F.Supp. 1021 (ED Pa.1971), rev'd on other grounds, 463 F.2d 1024 (CA3......
-
Spence v. State
...the proceedings three times to announce a guilty verdict before the defense had concluded its case. See also Thomas v. District of Columbia, 90 F.2d 424 (D.C.Cir.1937); Floyd v. State, 90 So.2d 105 (Fla.1956); Commonwealth v. Richman, 132 Pa.Super. 529, 1 A.2d 578 (1938). In Commonwealth v.......
-
Jones v. Gasch
...been committed." 7 United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 407, 78 S.Ct. 875, 877, 2 L.Ed.2d 873 (1958). 8 Thomas v. District of Columbia, 67 App. D.C. 179, 183, 90 F.2d 424, 428 (1937); Vandegrift v. United States, 313 F.2d 93, 96 (9th Cir. 1963). See also In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136,......