United States v. Turner
| Decision Date | 13 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1935.,72-1935. |
| Citation | 472 F.2d 958 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Larry TURNER, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Alexander L. Wilson, Arlington, Va., on brief for appellant.
Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., and Gilbert K. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
William Larry Turner was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and of possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of fifteen and five years. We affirm.
On appeal Turner contends that (1) he was denied his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when the trial court required him to don a wig and sunglasses to enable the jury to compare his physical appearance with photographs identified as those of the bank robber; (2) he was denied his rights to a fair trial and due process of law by the trial court's statement to the jury that he did not object to putting on the wig and glasses.
Several government witnesses who had observed the robbery testified that the hold-up man was wearing a wig and sunglasses. The wig was variously described as black, curly, Afro, and layered and the sunglasses as dark green or black. At the close of its case in chief the Government requested the court to require Turner to don a wig and sunglasses allegedly similar to the items worn by the hold-up man. Although none of the eyewitnesses identified these items as the ones used in the robbery, the trial court directed Turner to put on the wig and sunglasses so that the jury could compare his appearance with photographs of the robber taken by the bank camera on the day of the robbery and two days prior to the robbery.
While we note that the Government did not artfully lay the groundwork for this demonstration there was substantial evidence that the hold-up man was wearing a dark, curly wig and dark sunglasses similar to those used in the demonstration. Thus, the prosecution did establish a sufficient evidentiary basis for conducting the demonstration.
We find that the demonstration did not violate Turner's right against self-incrimination, because the evidence adduced was real or physical and not testimonial or communicative. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); United States v. Jones, 443 F.2d 1077 (4 Cir. 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Williams
...cooperate in non-communicative activity in the presence of the jury does not abdicate fifth amendment guarantees. In United States v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958 (4th Cir.1973) the Court concluded that no fifth amendment privilege had been compromised when the defendant was required to "put on the......
-
U.S. v. Williams, 05-4381.
...to modify his appearance or to don clothing known to have been worn by the person who committed the offense. See United States v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958, 959 (4th Cir.1973) (requiring the defendant to wear a wig and sunglasses); United States v. Valenzuela, 722 F.2d 1431, 1433 (9th Cir.1983) ......
-
Bivins v. State
...Other jurisdictions have reached a similar conclusion. United States v. Satterfield, (9th Cir. 1978) 572 F.2d 687; United States v. Turner (4th Cir. 1973) 472 F.2d 958; Vigil v. People, (1956) 134 Colo. 126, 300 P.2d 545; Morris v. State, (Fla.App.1966) 184 So.2d 199; State v. Williams, (19......
-
State v. Williams, 45158
...which required defendant, in the presence of the jury, to put on a ski mask similar to the one worn by the robber. In United States v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958 (4 Cir. 1973), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that requiring a defendant to put on a wig and sunglasses......
-
Trials
...samples, 1980 hair samples, 1981 or fingerprints; 1982 (8) have teeth and gums examined; 1983 1976. See, e.g. , U.S. v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958, 959 (4th Cir. 1973) (compelling defendant to wear a wig and sunglasses not 5th Amendment violation because not testimonial); U.S. v. Murray, 523 F.2......
-
§ 43.03 "Testimonial-Real" Evidence Distinction
...892, 894 (5th Cir. 1973) (requiring the defendant to put on a stocking mask worn during the robbery). See also United States v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958, 959 (4th Cir. 1973) (requiring the defendant to wear a wig and sunglasses); United States v. Valenzuela, 722 F.2d 1431, 1433 (9th Cir. 1983) ......