United States v. Rundle, 16724.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16724.,16724. |
| Citation | 384 F.2d 997 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Francis O'HALLORAN, Appellant, v. Alfred T. RUNDLE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Francis O'Halloran, pro se.
Alan J. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Philadelphia, Pa. Charles A. Haddad, Asst. Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief, for appellee.
Before HASTIE, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by a state prisoner from a judgment denying him a writ of habeas corpus.
In the circumstances of this case, we rule that the taking of the appellant's fingerprints in open court, over his objection, was not a denial of fair trial or inconsistent with due process of law. No other point of substance is properly before us on this appeal.
The judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cole, No. W2002-01254-CCA-R3-DD (Tenn. Crim. 11/24/2003)
...in the presence of the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Peters, 687 F.2d 1295, 1297 (10th Cir. 1982); United States ex rel O'Halloran v. Rundle, 384 F.2d 997 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 860 (1968); People v. Montoya, 543 P.2d 514, 518 (Colo. 1975); State v. Stuard, 452 P.2d 98,......
-
U.S. v. Peters, s. 79-1784
...388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). Fingerprints may be taken in the presence of the jury. United States v. Rundle, 384 F.2d 997 (3d Cir. 1967). It is apparent that by reason of the nontestimonial nature of fingerprint taking and use, they may be taken as part of the proof ......
-
State v. Johnson, 81692.
...with respect to the taking of fingerprints. United States ex rel. O'Halloran v. Rundle (E.D. Pa. 1967), 266 F.Supp. 173, affirmed (1967), 384 F.2d 997, certiorari denied (1968), 393 U.S. 860, 21 L.Ed.2d 128, 89 S.Ct. 138. Therefore, we do not find that the court violated any constitutional ......
-
State v. Jamerson
...Thus, he argues that the fingerprint comments were prejudicial. In United States v. Rundle, 266 F.Supp. 173 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff'd, 384 F.2d 997 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 860, 89 S.Ct. 138, 21 L.Ed.2d 128 (1968), defendant's fingerprints were taken in open court during trial. It......