James S. Gilliam v. United States

D.C. Circuit

James S. Gilliam v. United States

257 F.2d 185, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 181, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1958

Docket13956

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 257 F.2d 185 (James S. Gilliam 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 S. Gilliam v. United States, 257 F.2d 185, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 181, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery. D.C.Code, § 22-2901 (1951). On appeal, his principal contention is that his oral admissions to the police should have been excluded as evidence, under Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, and the cases which preceded it. But no objection was raised at the trial. Nor is there present here any suggestion of coercion, or any factor which might make it appropriate to reach the question of admissibility despite the absence of objection. See Lawson v. United States, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 248 F.2d 654, certiorari denied 1958, 355 U.S. 963, 78 S.Ct. 552, 2 L.Ed.2d 537; cf. Perry v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 253 F.2d 337; Blackshear v. United States, 1958, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 252 F.2d 853.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery. D.C.Code, § 22-2901 (1951). On appeal, his principal contention is that his oral admissions to the police should have been excluded as evidence, under Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, and the cases which preceded it. But no objection was raised at the trial. Nor is there present here any suggestion of coercion, or any factor which might make it appropriate to reach the question of admissibility despite the absence of objection. See Lawson v. United States, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 248 F.2d 654, certiorari denied 1958, 355 U.S. 963, 78 S.Ct. 552, 2 L.Ed.2d 537; cf. Perry v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 253 F.2d 337; Blackshear v. United States, 1958, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 252 F.2d 853.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 F.2d 185, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 181, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-s-gilliam-v-united-states-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack