United States v. James David Sartain

422 F.2d 387, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10930
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 1970
Docket23323
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 387 (United States v. James David Sartain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. James David Sartain, 422 F.2d 387, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10930 (9th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James David Sartain (hereinafter Sartain), was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California following a trial by jury for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, subsecs, (a), (d). A timely appeal was taken to this court which has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294(4).

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Sartain’s motion to strike the testimony of identification witnesses under the authority of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).

*388 Two Government witnesses were shown pictures of Sartain prior to the time of trial but subsequent to the time counsel had been appointed. Both witnesses made positive in-court identification. Each was cross-examined and neither wavered in his identification. There was no evidence that ,the showing of the photographs had any causal connection with the witnesses’ ability to identify Sartain at the trial.

The cross-examination by Sartain’s counsel merely established the fact that the witnesses had seen photographs of Sartain prior to trial. Counsel did not try to determine the manner in which the. photographs were shown or if their showing had any relation to ,the in-court testimony. From the information which was elicited, the identification procedure was not shown to be so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

The .trial court properly denied Sartain’s motion to strike. United States v. Stinson, 422 F.2d 356 (9 Cir., Dec. 29, 1969); United States v. Conway, 415 F.2d 158 (3d Cir. 1969).

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Thomas Albert Trejo
501 F.2d 138 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Charles J. Ash, Jr.
461 F.2d 92 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 F.2d 387, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-david-sartain-ca9-1970.