United States v. LA DOWDY, 73-1151. Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1151. Summary Calendar.,73-1151. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 486 F.2d 1042 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L. A. DOWDY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
C. Michael Malski, Amory, Miss. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.
H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Dowdy was convicted in a jury trial of bank robbery by force and intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d). In this appeal, Dowdy contends that the court below improperly denied the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination enjoyed by a prosecution witness by requiring the witness to testify at Dowdy's trial, and that Dowdy has standing to protest this alleged violation of the witness' constitutional right. We affirm.
In the course of Dowdy's trial, the prosecution called as a witness Herbert Freeman, who had earlier entered a guilty plea in connection with the same offenses charged against Dowdy. Following Freeman's damaging testimony on direct examination as to Dowdy's participation in the robbery, Dowdy objected that Freeman was being forced to testify, without advice of his retained counsel, in violation of the witness' Fifth Amendment rights. Holding that Freeman's guilty plea constituted a waiver of his testimonial privilege, the court overruled Dowdy's objection.
Even if Dowdy's argument with respect to Freeman's Fifth Amendment privilege were persuasive, the opportunity to urge his theory must be denied for lack of standing. Since he was not compelled to testify, Dowdy does not complain of violations of his own Fifth Amendment rights, but only of alleged infringements of the privilege enjoyed by another. As this court has previously held, one cannot assert in his own defense the denial of another's right against self-incrimination. Hall v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 45, 48 (citations omitted). See Gissendanner v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1973, 482 F.2d 1293.
The district court properly overruled Dowdy's objection.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Manbeck
...this objection because the right against self-incrimination is personal and may not be vicariously asserted, citing United States v. Dowdy, 486 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir.1973) cert. denied, 415 U.S. 992, 94 S.Ct. 1592, 39 L.Ed.2d 888 (1974); Hall v. United States, 413 F.2d 45, 48 (5th Cir.19......
-
Schuessler v. Benchmark Marketing and Consulting, Inc., S-90-1074
...the Fifth Amendment protection is personal, Benchmark may not assert its employees' protection on their behalf. See, United States v. Dowdy, 486 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 992, 94 S.Ct. 1592, 39 L.Ed.2d 888 (1974); United States v. Goodwin, 470 F.2d 893 (5th Cir.1972), ......
-
Stevens v. Zant
...It seems counsel was not even aware of the weakness inherent in his "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument. See United States v. Dowdy, 486 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.1973) (holding that standing to assert Fifth Amendment privilege is personal), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 992, 94 S.Ct. 1592, 39 L.Ed.2d......
-
United States v. Manbeck
...self-incrimination. The right against self-incrimination is personal and may not be vicariously asserted. See, United States v. Dowdy, 486 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir. 1973); Hall v. United States, 413 F.2d 45, 48 (5th Cir. 12 Defendant Brogden was asked questions concerning why he was at Benn......