United States v. Samuel Williams

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Samuel Williams

436 F.2d 287, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6663

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1970

Docket23098_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 287 (United States v. Samuel Williams) 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

United States v. Samuel Williams, 436 F.2d 287, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6663 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

These appeals are from jury convictions of passing and uttering counterfeited obligations of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 472), and for intimidating a government witness (18 U.S.C. § 1503). The three issues raised by appellant on appeal all relate to matters to which no objection was taken in the trial court.

Appellant first argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to exclude prior convictions of wit[288]*288nesses who testified for appellant. See Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965). In Davis v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 409 F.2d 453 (1969), this court held that the Luck doctrine applies to impeachment by prior convictions of all witnesses, not just the accused. However, unless the trial judge’s discretion in this regard is properly invoked in the first instance with respect to an accused testifying in his own defense, it cannot normally be held on appeal to have been abused. See, e. g., Evans v. United States, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 114, 397 F.2d 675 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 907, 89 S.Ct. 1016, 22 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969); Harley v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 377 F.2d 172 (1967); Hood v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 365 F.2d 949 (1966). The same principle is a fortiori applicable to defense witnesses other than the accused.¹

Appellant’s second contention focuses upon the trial judge’s explanatory remarks prefatory to his instruction to the jury with respect to the impeachment of defense witnesses. The trial judge stated that a counsel vouches for the credibility of the witnesses he produces. Appellant charges that these remarks put the credibility of the defense counsel in issue. This appears to be a strained construction of what was said; and we note that trial counsel himself saw no occasion to object. Under the circumstances, we find no basis for reversal in this incident.

Finally, appellant contends that he was fatally prejudiced by the allegedly improper cross-examination by the prosecutor of certain character witnesses offered by appellant. Questions were asked as to the witnesses’ knowledge of previous arrests of appellant for robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon, and housebreaking. There is considerable latitude to ask character witnesses about the state of their knowledge of defendant’s background and experience as they bear upon his reputation for honesty and integrity. See Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1958); Cf. United States v. Wooden, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 420 F.2d 251 (1969). Whether the government’s cross-examination in this instance was within the permissible bounds need not be definitely resolved by us since there was no objection to the questions asked. Of this point, as of the others discussed above, it is true in any event that the error, if any, was harmless when considered by reference to the entire record. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

These appeals are from jury convictions of passing and uttering counterfeited obligations of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 472), and for intimidating a government witness (18 U.S.C. § 1503). The three issues raised by appellant on appeal all relate to matters to which no objection was taken in the trial court.

Appellant first argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to exclude prior convictions of wit[288]*288nesses who testified for appellant. See Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965). In Davis v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 409 F.2d 453 (1969), this court held that the Luck doctrine applies to impeachment by prior convictions of all witnesses, not just the accused. However, unless the trial judge’s discretion in this regard is properly invoked in the first instance with respect to an accused testifying in his own defense, it cannot normally be held on appeal to have been abused. See, e. g., Evans v. United States, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 114, 397 F.2d 675 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 907, 89 S.Ct. 1016, 22 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969); Harley v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 377 F.2d 172 (1967); Hood v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 365 F.2d 949 (1966). The same principle is a fortiori applicable to defense witnesses other than the accused.¹

Appellant’s second contention focuses upon the trial judge’s explanatory remarks prefatory to his instruction to the jury with respect to the impeachment of defense witnesses. The trial judge stated that a counsel vouches for the credibility of the witnesses he produces. Appellant charges that these remarks put the credibility of the defense counsel in issue. This appears to be a strained construction of what was said; and we note that trial counsel himself saw no occasion to object. Under the circumstances, we find no basis for reversal in this incident.

Finally, appellant contends that he was fatally prejudiced by the allegedly improper cross-examination by the prosecutor of certain character witnesses offered by appellant. Questions were asked as to the witnesses’ knowledge of previous arrests of appellant for robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon, and housebreaking. There is considerable latitude to ask character witnesses about the state of their knowledge of defendant’s background and experience as they bear upon his reputation for honesty and integrity. See Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1958); Cf. United States v. Wooden, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 420 F.2d 251 (1969). Whether the government’s cross-examination in this instance was within the permissible bounds need not be definitely resolved by us since there was no objection to the questions asked. Of this point, as of the others discussed above, it is true in any event that the error, if any, was harmless when considered by reference to the entire record. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 287, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-samuel-williams-cadc-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack