Robert Schoenbrun v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert Schoenbrun v. United States

403 F.2d 56, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 1968

Docket25308

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 403 F.2d 56 (Robert Schoenbrun v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Schoenbrun v. United States, 403 F.2d 56, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5376 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Robert Schoenbrun, defendant-appellant, was convicted of forging the payee’s signature on a Social Security check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495. At the trial the United States introduced a handwriting sample government agents obtained from Schoenbrun without giving him the full Miranda warning. At the time, he was confronted with his alleged accomplice in an atmosphere charged with hostility. The Government’s handwriting expert testified that the endorsement on the check was written by the same person whose handwriting (the exemplar) was submitted to him as being Schoenbrun’s. The defendant’s expert testified that he could not positively identify the endorsement as Schoenbrun’s. There is much to be said for the appellant’s contention that in the circumstances of this case he was entitled to the Miranda warnings and to the advice of counsel at what to him was a critical stage in the proceeding — the point at which it appeared necessary for him to give a sample of his handwriting. However, Gilbert v. State of California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 266, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1182, compels us to hold that a “handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying characteristic outside [the protection of the Fifth Amendment] and * * * the taking of the exemplars [is], not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal proceedings entitling petitioner to the assistance of counsel”.

There is no merit to the appellant’s contention that the evidence does not support the verdict of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Robert Schoenbrun, defendant-appellant, was convicted of forging the payee’s signature on a Social Security check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495. At the trial the United States introduced a handwriting sample government agents obtained from Schoenbrun without giving him the full Miranda warning. At the time, he was confronted with his alleged accomplice in an atmosphere charged with hostility. The Government’s handwriting expert testified that the endorsement on the check was written by the same person whose handwriting (the exemplar) was submitted to him as being Schoenbrun’s. The defendant’s expert testified that he could not positively identify the endorsement as Schoenbrun’s. There is much to be said for the appellant’s contention that in the circumstances of this case he was entitled to the Miranda warnings and to the advice of counsel at what to him was a critical stage in the proceeding — the point at which it appeared necessary for him to give a sample of his handwriting. However, Gilbert v. State of California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 266, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1182, compels us to hold that a “handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying characteristic outside [the protection of the Fifth Amendment] and * * * the taking of the exemplars [is], not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal proceedings entitling petitioner to the assistance of counsel”.

There is no merit to the appellant’s contention that the evidence does not support the verdict of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 F.2d 56, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-schoenbrun-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack