William H. Briggs v. United States

D.C. Circuit

William H. Briggs v. United States

255 F.2d 897, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 145, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1958

Docket14301

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F.2d 897 (William H. Briggs v. United States) 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

William H. Briggs v. United States, 255 F.2d 897, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 145, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following conviction on two counts of violation of the narcotics laws, appellant asserted here that a District Judge (not the trial judge) erred in his denial of appellant’s motion before trial to suppress certain evidence simply on the basis of argument by counsel and without hearing the appellant’s testimony. The record shows that the first judge summarily denied the request of defense counsel that the accused be permitted to take the stand on the motion to suppress. We do not condone this clear error, which, without more, would have caused us to reverse the judgment of conviction here obtained.

*898 However, we have examined in detail the transcript of the trial. Appellant’s motion was renewed at the trial, and a different judge made extensive inquiry into the disputed circumstances under which the evidence sought to be suppressed had been obtained. The arresting officer and the accused himself were heard at length. Thus the pre-trial error was cured, for the appellant, although belatedly, was afforded full opportunity to explain in detail his version of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. It was thereupon ruled that the evidence had been legally obtained, a conclusion we will not disturb.

Since the record amply sustains the jury’s guilty verdict, the conviction is

Affirmed.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following conviction on two counts of violation of the narcotics laws, appellant asserted here that a District Judge (not the trial judge) erred in his denial of appellant’s motion before trial to suppress certain evidence simply on the basis of argument by counsel and without hearing the appellant’s testimony. The record shows that the first judge summarily denied the request of defense counsel that the accused be permitted to take the stand on the motion to suppress. We do not condone this clear error, which, without more, would have caused us to reverse the judgment of conviction here obtained.

*898 However, we have examined in detail the transcript of the trial. Appellant’s motion was renewed at the trial, and a different judge made extensive inquiry into the disputed circumstances under which the evidence sought to be suppressed had been obtained. The arresting officer and the accused himself were heard at length. Thus the pre-trial error was cured, for the appellant, although belatedly, was afforded full opportunity to explain in detail his version of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. It was thereupon ruled that the evidence had been legally obtained, a conclusion we will not disturb.

Since the record amply sustains the jury’s guilty verdict, the conviction is

Affirmed.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 897, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 145, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-h-briggs-v-united-states-cadc-1958.