United States v. Hill
Decision Date | 19 May 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 14318.,14318. |
Citation | 332 F.2d 105 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence HILL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
R. Eugene Pincham and Charles B. Evins, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., Douglas G. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, John Powers Crowley, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel, for appellee.
Before DUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
Two alleged sales of narcotics are involved in this case. The defendant was found guilty by a jury verdict. In the trial, the Government was required to rely largely on the testimony of one Brown who was a "special employee" of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and was also a thrice-convicted felon, one of the convictions being on the charge of post-office safe robbery.
Defendant contends he did not receive a fair or impartial trial by reason of the trial court's advocacy for and on behalf of the prosecution, the Court's cross-examination of the defendant and defendant's witnesses, and the alleged prejudicial and erroneous instructional comment on the evidence and other comments.
We think this was a close case. Defendant, at all times, denied trafficking in narcotics. None of the pre-recorded currency nor the narcotics or paraphernalia used in connection therewith, were found in defendant's possession. The testimony of "special employee" Brown was practically uncorroborated except for the agents' identification of defendant's voice which was heard by the agents for the first time over the telephone and a battery-powered transmitting and receiving set, sometimes referred to as a "Fargo Device."
We agree with the Court's statement in Gomila v. United States, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 372, 373-374: * * *"
Also pertinent is United States v. Carmel, 7 Cir., 267 F.2d 345, 350 where this Court stated:
A reading of the record discloses that in the case at bar, the trial court did participate extensively in the cross-examination of the defendant. The Government was represented by able trial counsel and there was no apparent reason why that counsel needed any help on the cross-examination of the defendant or defendant's witnesses. The trial court asked thirty-five questions of the defendant on cross-examination, and a number of them were so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fernandez
...jurors." United States v. Carmel, 267 F.2d 345, 350 (7th Cir.1959); United States v. Tobin, supra, 1282; United States v. Hill, 332 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir.1964); People v. Yut Wai Tom, supra, 53 N.Y.2d 57, 422 N.E.2d 556, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896 ("[a] Trial Judge's examination of witnesses carries......
-
Johnson v. Scully
...the fair trial to which our law entitles them."), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 820, 91 S.Ct. 38, 27 L.Ed.2d 48 (1970); United States v. Hill, 332 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir. 1964) ("`a fair and impartial trial is guaranteed to every defendant, and fundamentally means a trial before an impartial judge......
-
United States ex rel. Bradley v. Hartigan
...See Baron, 602 F.2d at 1249; Kidding, 560 F.2d at 1314; United States v. Tobin, 426 F.2d 1279, 1282 (7th Cir.1970); United States v. Hill, 332 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir.1964). The petitioner specifically alleges that during the state's presentation of its case, following the direct examination......
-
Furtado v. Furtado
...to a probation officer of the Probate Court. Needless to say, defense counsel was put in an awkward position. See United States v. Hill, 332 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir. 1964). His objections to the admission of evidence were not likely to be considered with the judicial impartiality which shoul......