Lindburgh Williams v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Lindburgh Williams v. United States

308 F.2d 652, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 399, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4034

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 1962

Docket16708

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 308 F.2d 652 (Lindburgh Williams 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

Lindburgh Williams v. United States, 308 F.2d 652, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 399, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4034 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Williams appeals from a robbery conviction on the ground that his confession was received in violation of the Mallory interpretation 1 of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. There was, according to his counsel, a delay of about 20 minutes in taking him before the nearest available commissioner, during which he confessed.

The record does not show any objection to the admission of the oral confession on a Mallory point or on any other ground. Thus the point was not preserved for presentation on appeal and, under established procedure, it will not be noticed here. Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 290 F.2d 378 (1961).

Subsequent to the allowance of this appeal, Williams’s counsel, realizing that in the absence of objection this court probably would not consider his argument as to inadmissibility, moved the District Court to correct or modify the record to make it show an objection to evidence of the oral confession based on coercion and a Mallory violation. This was under Rule 75(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. Various affidavits as to this were presented to the trial judge. He denied the motion, correctly we think.

Affirmed.

1

. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957).

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

PER CURIAM.

Williams appeals from a robbery conviction on the ground that his confession was received in violation of the Mallory interpretation 1 of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. There was, according to his counsel, a delay of about 20 minutes in taking him before the nearest available commissioner, during which he confessed.

The record does not show any objection to the admission of the oral confession on a Mallory point or on any other ground. Thus the point was not preserved for presentation on appeal and, under established procedure, it will not be noticed here. Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 290 F.2d 378 (1961).

Subsequent to the allowance of this appeal, Williams’s counsel, realizing that in the absence of objection this court probably would not consider his argument as to inadmissibility, moved the District Court to correct or modify the record to make it show an objection to evidence of the oral confession based on coercion and a Mallory violation. This was under Rule 75(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. Various affidavits as to this were presented to the trial judge. He denied the motion, correctly we think.

Affirmed.

1

. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 F.2d 652, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 399, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindburgh-williams-v-united-states-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack