James O. Wynder v. United States

D.C. Circuit

James O. Wynder v. United States

352 F.2d 662, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 186, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1965

Docket18758_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 662 (James O. Wynder v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James O. Wynder v. United States, 352 F.2d 662, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 186, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Louis Y. Wilson and James 0. Wynder were indicted for robbery, D.C.Code § 22-2901, were tried together, and were convicted. Both appealed. Wilson’s conviction was affirmed by this court on December 17, 1964, Wilson v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 72, 344 F.2d 166. To the extent applicable, that decision is controlling here.

Two additional contentions advanced by Wynder must be considered. One is that although his pre-trial motion for a mental examination was properly granted, the examination was completed in too short a time (about a month), and was inadequate. In its report, the staff of St. Elizabeths found that appellant [663]*663was competent to stand trial and was without mental disease or defect both at the time of the alleged crime and the time of the examination. Appellant below urged that at least 90 days was required to make an adequate examination, and now on appeal contends that some period longer than the thirty days actually afforded was necessary for a proper examination. But there is no set period required for a mental examination; and the examination does not appear to have been inadequate for any other reason. He moved for a second examination. The denial of his motion was not an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion. Cf. Perry v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C.-, 347 F.2d 813 (1964), cert. denied Dec. 13, 1965, 86 S.Ct. 438.

In Young and Simmons v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 346 F.2d 793 (1965), we had occasion to criticize the trial judge for his interference with the defense and his derogatory remarks concerning the court-appointed attorney who was defending the accused. The conduct there condemned was the basis for reversing the conviction. Some unnecessary judicial intervention and criticism occurred in the present case, but we do not regard it as depriving this appellant of a fair trial, and we have concluded we should not reverse on account of it.

We have considered all points raised by appellant and found them without merit. The conviction is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Louis Y. Wilson and James 0. Wynder were indicted for robbery, D.C.Code § 22-2901, were tried together, and were convicted. Both appealed. Wilson’s conviction was affirmed by this court on December 17, 1964, Wilson v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 72, 344 F.2d 166. To the extent applicable, that decision is controlling here.

Two additional contentions advanced by Wynder must be considered. One is that although his pre-trial motion for a mental examination was properly granted, the examination was completed in too short a time (about a month), and was inadequate. In its report, the staff of St. Elizabeths found that appellant [663]*663was competent to stand trial and was without mental disease or defect both at the time of the alleged crime and the time of the examination. Appellant below urged that at least 90 days was required to make an adequate examination, and now on appeal contends that some period longer than the thirty days actually afforded was necessary for a proper examination. But there is no set period required for a mental examination; and the examination does not appear to have been inadequate for any other reason. He moved for a second examination. The denial of his motion was not an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion. Cf. Perry v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C.-, 347 F.2d 813 (1964), cert. denied Dec. 13, 1965, 86 S.Ct. 438.

In Young and Simmons v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 346 F.2d 793 (1965), we had occasion to criticize the trial judge for his interference with the defense and his derogatory remarks concerning the court-appointed attorney who was defending the accused. The conduct there condemned was the basis for reversing the conviction. Some unnecessary judicial intervention and criticism occurred in the present case, but we do not regard it as depriving this appellant of a fair trial, and we have concluded we should not reverse on account of it.

We have considered all points raised by appellant and found them without merit. The conviction is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 662, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 186, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-o-wynder-v-united-states-cadc-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack