Paul R. Green v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Paul R. Green v. United States

289 F.2d 765

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 1961

Docket16156

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 F.2d 765 (Paul R. Green 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

Paul R. Green v. United States, 289 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that his conviction for robbery must be reversed because the identification of him as one of the attackers was insufficient. The complainant picked appellant as his attacker in a police lineup when he was arrested five months after the attack and unequivocally identified him at the trial. Appellant makes a vigorous attack on the complainant’s credibility relying on inconsistent prior statements of the complainant. Complainant freely admitted prior statements which were inconsistent with his testimony on trial. Appellant was near the scene at about the time of the attack. The credibility of his alibi witness, who placed him in a tourist home nearby, must be considered in the light of the fact she had become appellant’s wife after the date of the alleged robbery. At best her testimony, if believed, did not rule out the possibility that appellant could have taken part in the robbery and gone to the tourist home immediately thereafter.

Viewing the entire record we conclude that while the conflict in the testimony and the prior inconsistent statements of the complainant were such *766 as to permit some degree of doubt, they do not compel a reasonable doubt about guilt. “In our jurisprudence the credibility of witnesses and the derivation of the truth from oral testimony are reposed in the hearer of the witnesses.” Wigfall v. United States, 1956, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 252, 253, 230 F.2d 220, 221. Hinton v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 13, 196 F.2d 605 is not applicable.

We have considered the contentions and the record relating to rulings of the District Court and find no error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that his conviction for robbery must be reversed because the identification of him as one of the attackers was insufficient. The complainant picked appellant as his attacker in a police lineup when he was arrested five months after the attack and unequivocally identified him at the trial. Appellant makes a vigorous attack on the complainant’s credibility relying on inconsistent prior statements of the complainant. Complainant freely admitted prior statements which were inconsistent with his testimony on trial. Appellant was near the scene at about the time of the attack. The credibility of his alibi witness, who placed him in a tourist home nearby, must be considered in the light of the fact she had become appellant’s wife after the date of the alleged robbery. At best her testimony, if believed, did not rule out the possibility that appellant could have taken part in the robbery and gone to the tourist home immediately thereafter.

Viewing the entire record we conclude that while the conflict in the testimony and the prior inconsistent statements of the complainant were such *766 as to permit some degree of doubt, they do not compel a reasonable doubt about guilt. “In our jurisprudence the credibility of witnesses and the derivation of the truth from oral testimony are reposed in the hearer of the witnesses.” Wigfall v. United States, 1956, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 252, 253, 230 F.2d 220, 221. Hinton v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 13, 196 F.2d 605 is not applicable.

We have considered the contentions and the record relating to rulings of the District Court and find no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 F.2d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-r-green-v-united-states-cadc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack