Louis Fennel v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Louis Fennel v. United States

320 F.2d 784, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 62, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4820

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1963

Docket17697

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 320 F.2d 784 (Louis Fennel 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

Louis Fennel v. United States, 320 F.2d 784, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 62, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4820 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction of robbery, 22 D.C.Code § 2901, on a trial before a judge, trial by jury having been waived. 1 The defendant sought to convince the judge that the charge against him was due to a mistaken identification, but the evidence against him is strong, and we affirm. But we note that the trial judge erred in developing the fact — with the prosecution commendably not encouraging him to do so — that defendant at the time of his apprehension was found to have in his possession an automobile driver’s license bearing a name other than his own. Were the trial before a jury, or were the evidence of guilt less strong, we would feel obliged to reverse, since the driver’s license had nothing to do with the case on trial.

Affirmed.

1

. Defendant, now the appellant, was a juvenile. The Juvenile Court had waived jurisdiction to the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction of robbery, 22 D.C.Code § 2901, on a trial before a judge, trial by jury having been waived. 1 The defendant sought to convince the judge that the charge against him was due to a mistaken identification, but the evidence against him is strong, and we affirm. But we note that the trial judge erred in developing the fact — with the prosecution commendably not encouraging him to do so — that defendant at the time of his apprehension was found to have in his possession an automobile driver’s license bearing a name other than his own. Were the trial before a jury, or were the evidence of guilt less strong, we would feel obliged to reverse, since the driver’s license had nothing to do with the case on trial.

Affirmed.

1

. Defendant, now the appellant, was a juvenile. The Juvenile Court had waived jurisdiction to the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F.2d 784, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 62, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-fennel-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack