United States v. Anderson, 12495.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 12495.,12495. |
| Citation | 406 F.2d 719 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donald Eugene ANDERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stewart C. Economou, Alexandria, Va., for appellant.
John D. Schmidtlein, Asst. U. S. Atty., (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
Donald Eugene Anderson appeals his conviction of bank robbery, assigning as error the introduction of evidence concerning a lineup in which he was identified. Anderson asserts that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law because he was compelled to appear in the lineup before he had been arrested for the offense. The purpose of an arrest is to take a person into custody, but Anderson was already in lawful custody as a result of his conviction for another crime. Cf. United States v. Jones, 403 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1968), and Rigney v. Hendrick, 355 F.2d 710 (3d Cir. 1965). Moreover, the lineup was not the adjunct of a dragnet. He had already been identified as the robber by an accomplice whose report of the robbery had been corroborated by investigations made by the police.
Nor do we find unfairness or prejudice in the conduct of the lineup. Counsel was appointed and present, a reporter transcribed the proceedings, and photographs of the lineup were taken. Neither the police nor the Assistant United States Attorney who conducted the lineup focused attention on Anderson. Distinctive garb was used as a disguise in the commission of the crime, and all persons in the lineup were similarly clothed. Cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 236 n. 26, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
Two employees of the bank who had identified Anderson in the lineup were unable to identify him at trial, but, of course, at that time he was not wearing the disguise. The court permitted the witnesses to testify that they had identified the man in the number four position of the lineup as the robber. A police officer was then allowed to testify that the number four man was Anderson. We find no error in the admission of this extrajudicial identification. See Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272 n. 3, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); cf. United States v. Fabio, 394 F.2d 132, 134 (4th Cir. 1968).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foy
...of equal protection has been raised in a number of jurisdictions and, with the exception of New York, been rejected. United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719 (4 Cir.), Cert. den., 395 U.S. 967, 89 S.Ct. 2114, 23 L.Ed.2d 753 (1969); United States v. Evans, 359 F.2d 776 (3 Cir.), Cert. den., 3......
-
State v. Carter
...party are then available for cross-examination. See also Niblitt v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 76, 225 S.E.2d 391 (1976); United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 967, 89 S.Ct. 2114, 23 L.Ed.2d 753. We conclude, therefore, that since both the victim and the......
-
People v. Malone
...FRE 801(d)(1)(C) and that federal courts permit the use of third-party testimony under the federal rule. See United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719 (C.A. 4, 1969), and United States v. Jarrad, 754 F.2d 1451 (C.A. 9, 1985). Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled with reg......
-
Niblett v. Com.
...reasoning of those courts which have approved the broad admissibility of identification evidence. See, for example, United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719 (4th Cir. 1969), where two witnesses who could not make an in-court identification were permitted to describe a pretrial lineup. A poli......
-
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
...than statements of identification of a person made after perceiving him which are currently admissible, see United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719, 720 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 967 (1969)) and allows only those made while the declarant was subject to cross-examination at a trial ......
-
Rule 801 DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS ARTICLE; EXCLUSIONS FROM HEARSAY
...than statements of identification of a person made after perceiving him which are currently admissible, see United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719, 720 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 967 (1969)) and allows only those made while the declarant was subject to cross-examination at a trial ......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 801 Definitions that Apply to This Article; Exclusions From Hearsay
...than statements of identification of a person made after perceiving him which are currently admissible, see United States v. Anderson, 406 F.2d 719, 720 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 967 (1969)) and allows only those made while the declarant was subject to cross-examination at a trial ......