United States v. Virgil Franklin Ryder

409 F.2d 1349, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 1969
Docket12246
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 1349 (United States v. Virgil Franklin Ryder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Virgil Franklin Ryder, 409 F.2d 1349, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12606 (4th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On the morning of September 19, •1967, the First and Merchants National Bank of Petersburg, Virginia, was robbed by a woman gun bearer of approximately $2,500. The robber escaped in a Chevrolet Impala driven, according to the jury verdict, by Virgil Franklin Ryder. Ryder appeals his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), contending that pretrial identification procedures were so unfair as to deny him due process and the right of counsel, and further that the district judge’s instructions to the jury on the question of identification were insufficient and erroneous.

Despite an exceptionally able presentation by counsel appointed on appeal, we think this appeal is wholly without merit, and affirm the judgment of the district court. Two customers of the bank were at the drive-in teller window when the robbery occurred. Both saw the driver of the getaway car, and one of them wrote down the license tag of the vehicle. No “lineup” or viewing of any sort was arranged by the government prior to the actual identification testimony at the preliminary hearing. There is no evidence whatever that identification was procured by impermissible suggestive activity on the part of government agents or law enforcement officers. Moreover, at the preliminary hearing the defendant was represented by counsel who then and there extensively cross-examined the identifying witness Newsom. The other identifying witness did not testify until the trial.

We have carefully examined the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on the question of identification. We *1350 find them to be sufficient, although since the trial occurred we have suggested a more complete instruction. See United States v. Levi, 405 F.2d 380 (4th Cir. 1968).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Farrell
401 A.2d 790 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Tommy Don Haskins v. United States
433 F.2d 836 (Tenth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 F.2d 1349, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-virgil-franklin-ryder-ca4-1969.