Williams v. United States, 10824.

Decision Date17 May 1951
Docket NumberNo. 10824.,10824.
Citation189 F.2d 693
PartiesWILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Joseph Levin, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Raymond E. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., John C. Conliff, Jr., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before CLARK, PROCTOR and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

An automobile truck was stolen in the District of Columbia; driven into Maryland; concealed in a woods; stripped of the wheels and tires, and the body burned. In the course of an investigation involving transportation of the stolen vehicle in interstate commerce,1 Federal agents obtained a confession from Williams, appellant. Upon his trial the confession was admitted by the court over the dual objection that it was the product of an illegal arrest and was involuntary. Those contentions are renewed here on appeal.

Considerable testimony was adduced concerning the confession. We give only a brief outline. The Federal agents, Nau and Buscher, testified that after receiving a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's office in Baltimore, indicating Williams' complicity, they met him on the street near his home in Washington, D. C.; identified themselves as F. B. I. agents; informed him of their desire to talk with him about the stolen truck, and requested him to go to their office in Washington, which he willingly did. They put him under no physical restraint; did nothing to create any impression that he was under detention. He asked them if he were under arrest. They told him he was not; that he could leave or get a lawyer, if he desired. Although Williams at first denied any knowledge of the truck, when the agents related their information implicating him, he stated that he and one Lucas had stolen the truck in the District and had taken it to Maryland, where they removed the wheels and tires to install on another truck. The statement was put into writing by Agent Nau; then read carefully by Williams who, at request of the agents, added in his own handwriting, over his signature, that he had read the statement and it was true to the best of his knowledge. The agents then informed the United States Attorney of developments. Upon his advice they put Williams under arrest and took him before the United States Commissioner, who held him for action of the Grand Jury. The conversation leading to the confession lasted about forty-five minutes. The entire episode covering the meeting with Williams until arrival at the Commissioner's office occupied the period from about noon until 2 P.M.

Williams, testifying after the agents, did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 2, 1959
    ...trickery, fraud or deceit, there was nothing for the jury to decide with reference to the Fifth Amendment. Williams v. United States, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 189 F.2d 693; Smith v. United States, 1 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 496, 498, affirmed 1954, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. Defendan......
  • United States v. Nemetz, Crim. No. 69-55.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 25, 1970
    ...v. Bachman, 267 F.Supp. 593 (W. D.Pa.1966); United States v. Fiore, 258 F.Supp. 435 (W.D.Pa.1966). 4 Cf. Williams v. United States, 89 U.S. App.D.C. 32, 189 F.2d 693 (1951), wherein it was held, absent evidence of involuntariness, that it was unnecessary to submit that question to the 5 See......
  • Smith v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 26, 1954
    ...evidence of coercion or compulsion, no factual question on this issue was presented for the jury to determine. Williams v. United States, 1951, 89 U.S. App.D.C. 32, 189 F.2d 693. There was, however, some conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the agent secured the statement by means ......
  • United States v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 11, 1962
    ...safeguards. The absolute instruction was quite justified. Smith v. United States, 210 F.2d 496, 498 (D.C.Cir. 1954); Williams v. United States, 189 F.2d 693 (D.C.Cir. 1951). Cf. Denny v. United States, 151 F.2d 828 (4 Cir. Defendant's other assignments relate to asserted irregularities of p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT