James G. Robideau v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington

Ninth Circuit

James G. Robideau v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington

452 F.2d 605, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6739

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1971

Docket71-1328

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 605 (James G. Robideau v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James G. Robideau v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington, 452 F.2d 605, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6739 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In Robideau v. Rhay, 431 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1970), we reversed an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to determine if the prosecutor’s comment on petitioner’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” That court found the comment harmless. Petitioner appeals from the order entered on this finding. We affirm.

At petitioner’s trial for robbing a supermarket, six store employees positively identified him as the robber. The robbery took place in a well lighted store; all the witnesses were within a few feet of the robber; the robber’s disguise was amateurish. Each of the witnesses remained unshaken in his identification of petitioner as the robber in the face of extensive cross-examination. Petitioner’s defense was alibi. His uncorroborated testimony was that he was “in hiding” on the night in question because of his recent escape from a California prison. The comment which we found objectionable on the prior appeal concerned petitioner’s failure to relate his alibi to the arresting officers.

On a review of the record before us, we agree with the district court that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s uncorroborated alibi was weak, while the evidence supporting his conviction was “overwhelming.” Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). The case against him is not “woven from circumstantial evidence,” id., but rests upon the uncontradicted and unshaken testimony of eyewitnesses to the robbery.

Denial of the writ is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In Robideau v. Rhay, 431 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1970), we reversed an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to determine if the prosecutor’s comment on petitioner’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” That court found the comment harmless. Petitioner appeals from the order entered on this finding. We affirm.

At petitioner’s trial for robbing a supermarket, six store employees positively identified him as the robber. The robbery took place in a well lighted store; all the witnesses were within a few feet of the robber; the robber’s disguise was amateurish. Each of the witnesses remained unshaken in his identification of petitioner as the robber in the face of extensive cross-examination. Petitioner’s defense was alibi. His uncorroborated testimony was that he was “in hiding” on the night in question because of his recent escape from a California prison. The comment which we found objectionable on the prior appeal concerned petitioner’s failure to relate his alibi to the arresting officers.

On a review of the record before us, we agree with the district court that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s uncorroborated alibi was weak, while the evidence supporting his conviction was “overwhelming.” Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). The case against him is not “woven from circumstantial evidence,” id., but rests upon the uncontradicted and unshaken testimony of eyewitnesses to the robbery.

Denial of the writ is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 F.2d 605, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-g-robideau-v-b-j-rhay-superintendent-washington-state-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack