U.S. v. Dobson, 74-1816
| Decision Date | 20 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1816,74-1816 |
| Citation | 512 F.2d 615 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene DOBSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John M. McKnight (Court Appointed-CJA), Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.
John L. Bowers, Jr., U. S. Atty., Charles N. Stedman, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
Eugene Dobson was tried before a jury in two consolidated cases and convicted of the unlawful possession, forgery and uttering of United States Treasury Social Security checks which had been stolen from the mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 495 and 1708.
On appeal two contentions are made as grounds for reversal: (1) That it was error to allow a Government witness to identify the defendant in the court room when the witness had failed to identify the picture of the defendant from an array of photographs; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
The appeal came on to be considered pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e). 1
Dobson was identified in the court room by Floyd Ernest Roach, owner of the Floyd Furniture Store at Knoxville, Tennessee, who cashed the stolen check. Mr. Roach testified that Dobson had been in the store the previous evening looking at a television set. He returned the following day and stayed approximately ten minutes. He purchased a $104.95 television set, paying for it by signing and cashing a check which proved to be stolen and receiving $270.15 in change. Mr. Roach stated that he watched Dobson for several minutes while he was waiting outside following the transaction and that Dobson later returned to the store to use the telephone. This witness had a good opportunity to see Dobson and to become familiar with his features. Earlier in his testimony, however, Mr. Roach had selected a photograph of a different person as the one who cashed the check.
In United States v. Black, 412 F.2d 687 (6th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970), this court held that where an eyewitness was unable to pick out a defendant's picture from an array of photographs, this did not prevent the same witness from making a positive in-court identification. This court said, speaking through Judge Weick:
The fact that eye witnesses to an occurrence cannot make a positive identification of an individual from an examination of photographs of a number of persons, does not necessarily detract from the validity of their in-court identification where they see the individual in person. The weight to be given to their in-court identification is for the jury to determine. 412 F.2d at 689.
To like effect see United States v. O'Neal, 496 F.2d 368, 372 (6th Cir.1974); United States v. Toney, 440 F.2d 590 (6th Cir.1971).
We conclude that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Bouchard
...v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1277 (6th Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Hamilton, 684 F.2d 380, 383 (6th Cir.1982) (same); United States v. Dobson, 512 F.2d 615, 616 (6th Cir.1975) (in pre-Manson case, allowing in-court identification testimony despite witness's selection of a different person ear......
-
Middleton v. United States
...failed to make a pretrial photographic identification.48 Reavis v. United States, D.C. App., 395 A.2d 75 (1978); see United States v. Dobson, 512 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1975). We do not doubt that Officer Wilson's recollection was in fact refreshed by his in-court exposure to the accused, but, ......
-
U.S. v. Beeler
...v. Bennett, 675 F.2d 596, 597-98 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Saint Prix, 672 F.2d 1077, 1084 (2nd Cir. 1982); United States v. Dobson, 512 F.2d 615, 616 (6th Cir.1975); United States v. Black, 412 F.2d 687, 688 (6th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (......
-
U.S. v. Beechum, 76-1444
...the checks, that the payees did not know the defendant, and often that the defendant cashed the check. See e. g., United States v. Dobson, 512 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Kimbrell, supra, 487 F.2d 219; United States v. Johnson, 463 F.2d 216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. ......