*1 compensation for $1,250 their Local as appellees’ reliance May, 1965, April, support rent lost between District Court of the Rule 5 can 1967. rent claim their origi their raised on the basis not be and remanded. Reversed misplaced. similarly pleadings nal to out purpose of rule is basic as pleadings, such line the formalities parties and and addresses of
names stationery. attorneys type Clause exception for ac
(d) of Rule 5 states of Gen from the Court tions transferred Cooper GIBSON, Appellant, W. exception Obviously this eral Sessions.3 has no pleadings normal form of may be STATES of relevance to the issues UNITED raised. II United States Court of ap District Columbia Circuit. determine whether Next we nomi pellants are more than entitled to Argued Jan. 1968. appel damages compensation for nal Decided Feb. wrongful prop possession their lees’ As Amended on Petition Re- pleaded erty appellees from the moment hearing En Banc Denied May, 1965, title until vacated 1,May major April, premises in A reason claiming requiring the intervening post dam title bond
ages discourage defendants rent is to interjecting issue for the title delaying
purpose possessory ac continuing enjoyment of
tion or premises. To
rent-free advance defending successfully their
policy those on the titles are to recover damage property to the extent that
bond of rent can be loss demonstrated. stipulated case it been
the instant has wrongfully possessed
that the defendants belonging for a plaintiffs
property fair
period of two property $140 of this value
rental left
per Thus we month. together statute
choice—the full appellants to entitle amount.
bond re- Court decision order remand the
versed. appellants to allow Court plea may proceed OF (d) DISTRICT title. Such FROM action ACTIONS upon complaint plea GENERAL COURT OF of title COLUMBIA apply to certified from the This rule District Columbia SESSIONS. Court of General from the Sessions. certified an action on a Sessions General Columbia
Overby, Jr., Asst. U. S. also appearance an appellee. tered for Senior Circuit Edgerton, Burger and and Circuit Tamm, Judge: BURGER, Circuit appeal This is an from a con taking viction for indecent liberties year boy. an eleven old Code 22 D.C. 3501(a) The by complain included direct evidence ing by witness and corroboration aspects mother on substantial of the ele ments of the The mother crime. subjected rigorous were to and effective cross examination. The Judge allowed access to Jury parts Grand minutes of argu minutes were used ing jury. to certain inconsistencies complainant The mother of that reported she had the incident at guests in the house at the time. None Joseph Washing- Tumulty, Jr., party of these Mr. P. were called either suggestion (appointed they court), there is D. no C. this were more available to the than Government to the defense. Indeed of Larry Knippa, Sp. Mr. Asst. challenge produce the mother was a Supreme bar guests secure, possible, other if a Texas, pro vice, special hac leave refutation of the mother’s court, David disturbing We find no basis for Q. Sey- U. S. Frank Nebeker and judgment.1 Glanzer, Attys., mour were on appellee. Mr. Albert W. Affirmed. closing 1. said: responsibility not. was is counsel’s you gentlemen, ground “I tell ladies whole know the rules follow them. gov- presiding judge here anticipate tailored cannot a ernment’s case is either counsel will fabrication deviate from rules you. appropriate to lure and hoodwink a and he is in ” position try remedy On the whole we difficult such clude that reversal this does warrant deviation an instruction. Defense emphasize but we take occasion to counsel here did not a remedial impermissible statement; charge perhaps this matter of sound opinion-conclusion tactics, evidence warranted this but we a remedial falsity prosecutor. charge requested. given The truth or would have been if exclusively jury. Judge’s charge for the Coun- to the may eminently sel whether witnesses fair and as we read it he telling they sought compensate indirectly the truth if remind but alone; them is for comments of the g., your e. “I call the testi- attention to tor. mony dissenting opinion X X and ask refers to another carefully they alleged impermissible to consider whether were telling they were, prosecutor. the truth. If then There are two sentences complaining witness and his mother which the dissent sets' lying. arguably You must decide which to believe.” out which are incorrect —“You permissible; used This form one will recall Mrs. Matthews made a state- you. None heart of case before OPINION
DISSENTING
it.
Judge
EDGERTON,
Senior
fact
As a matter of
(dissenting):
what
said.
credibility.
The issue
made a
recall Mrs. Matthews
You
mother
complaining
witness and
*3
April
im-
4th also. No
statement on
performed
appellant
had
testified that
peachment
that statement.
with
the al-
denied
indecent act.
Objection, Your
MR. HICKEY:
supported
legations
his
his
wife
not in evi-
statement is
Honor. That
dence.
jury
argument
the
In his rebuttal
Now,
statement
THE COURT:
question-
highly
prosecutor
the
two
made
Matthews, that
in evidence from Mrs.
First,
in a
he referred
statements.
able
correct,
it
don’t take
is
so
potentially prejudicial manner to a state-
arguing
that statement?
what was in
quote
the
I
not in evidence.1
ment
No, Your Honor.
MR. GLANZER:
transcript
pp.
at
117-118:
Proceed.
THE COURT:
(the prosecutor):
MR. GLANZER
clearly impermis-
This
attorney]
[the
defense
sible.2
might
impeach
tried as he
appellant’s
Second, he
boy and
mother].
[the
his
testimony
here tailored to
“whole
April
state-
3rd
with his
government’s
fab-
the
case is a
ment,
contemporane-
statement made
you and hood-
rication
lure
department.
ously
police
with the
* *
wink
(the
MR.
defense attor-
HICKEY
three wit-
introduced
ney)
April
Honor,
mother,
:
boy,
Your
this is the
nesses—the
very
arresting
only
4th statement.
There were
officer.
discrepanies
minor
between
right.
jury
THE
All
COURT:
testimony and
mother’s and between
rely
will
their own recollec-
have
on
earlier
his own
of each and
tion.
in detail
Each
statements.
April
MR.
4th state-
GLANZER:
appellant’s attempt
about
to make
ment,
impeach
do
tried to
and couldn’t
sodomy.
appellant
commit oral
through
grand jury min-
it. Read
wife
defense wit-
up
April
come
26 and
utes
denied that
nesses.
items,
three
her claims on variance
place;
tire incident had taken
his wife
go
none which
supported his
of the facts.
version
impeach-
April
ment
4th also. No
on
(1965).
In
those
cases
803
both of
ment with that
statement.”
There
was affirmative
there
objection
prosecutor
an immediate
alleged
statement
corrob-
contents
clarify any
himself
corrected
the witness.
orated
jury might
misconception
which
quite different.
In-
The situation here is
However,
first
this was not the
objection
received.
deed, after
and correction
been referred
statement
had
time that
to;
made
counsel
defense
the trial
reveals
objection
or mo-
further
jury
on at
informed of this statement
presumed
tion;
must be
he therefore
coun-
occasions
both
least
three
have been satisfied.
prosecutor’s
Thus,
sel.
Although
evidence,
not
in
the statement
merely repetitious
had
was
already
during
was referred to
the course of
been mentioned
both
both counsel.
The statement
and defense counsel.
tion
States,
U.S.App.
involved
to the level of error
v.
rise
Reichert
United
123
dissent,
(1966) ;
Reichert
359
in the cases cited
D.C.
F.2d 278
Johnson
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
v.
121
123
United
(1966) ;
Johnson v. United
should remain undisturbed. separate
there were two crime statements
charged emotionally explosive as is as cannot, one,3 determination my opinion, be I to stand. appellant
think to a new entitled
trial. *4 SPRINGFIELD, Appellant,
Theodore M.
UNITED STATES of United States Court District of Columbia Circuit. Clingan, Jr., Washing- Mr. Thomas A. Argued Jan. C., (appointed by court) Decided Oct. Rauh,
Mr. Carl S. Asst. U. S. Q. Nebeker, and Frank brief, ap- were on the pellee. Chief Bazelon, Wright Leventhal, PER CURIAM: carnal was convicted of knowledge girl aof under sixteen age. On regarding instructions the elements of defective, the offense were in- structions con- reasonable fusing and that there was insufficient evidence victim’s tes- timony. considered tentions and find them without merit.
On oral a new issue was raised. contended for the U.S.App.D.C. 193, See Barber v. decided March