United States v. Charles Williams

442 F.2d 1039, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10426
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 1971
Docket741, Docket 35582
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 1039 (United States v. Charles Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Charles Williams, 442 F.2d 1039, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10426 (2d Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction for larceny from a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, after a trial before a jury and Chief Judge Jacob Mishler. Williams argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred in refusing to suppress his oral statement to an FBI agent; and (2) under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the district court had no jurisdiction to try him as an adult. As to (1), Judge Dooling held a pre-trial hearing at which three witnesses, including defendant, testified. The judge concluded in substance that the statement was not coerced and that defendant had received Miranda warnings. We agree with the findings of the trial court in this respect and hold that no error was committed by allowing the statement in evidence.

The second claim is raised for the first time on appeal, and the record before us is concededly incomplete as to whether appellant refused to consent to juvenile procedure or whether the Attorney General directed criminal prosecution. Under these circumstances, we remand this case to the district court to *1040 make findings, and receive further evidence, if necessary, on the issues raised by this argument, as to which we express no view on the merits. If, as the Government claims, appellant was properly proceeded against in a criminal prosecution, the judgment of conviction should not be disturbed, and appellant will have the right to appeal again on issue (2) above, if he so desires. If the prosecution was not properly instituted, the district court shall take whatever corrective steps it regards as appropriate.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part in accordance with the above.

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

Related

United States v. Alejandro Ceja-Prado
333 F.3d 1046 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Charles Williams
459 F.2d 903 (Second Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
442 F.2d 1039, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-williams-ca2-1971.