*1 disаbility” making employee concept whole “total upheld, provision such It is not award be and as medical.6 economicas well testimony payments. Wе interest would include was no medical fatal that there expressly disability the District Court stating no reason was see order, effect insofar as it has the Deputy- Cоmmissioner—ac total. The causing injunction a sus- testimony claim as such an cepting that the medical carry pension payments, confused—could ant was disoriented and disability obligation pay interest it the properly have inferred total testimony be vindicated should the award that he wanted from claimant’s very willingly appeal.7 Work, much to as he past, simply Our con but could not. Reversed. Deputy did clusion that the Commissioner by the improperly is underscored act Judge PRETTYMAN Senior Cirсuit of tem fact that his award was porary concurs the result. disability The is total benefits. disability claimant’s sue the extent of questioned in future give considera should the Cоmmissioner per award to tion to of the conversion disability.
manent total argument, ad
At we were oral paying
vised that the com carrier ceased pensation the award as due under date of exрlored order. We the District Court’s BLAKNEY, Fairley Appellant, question interest v. should be awarded for amounts accrued America, UNITED STATES of unpaid the award. Counsel Appellee. be, appellees for concedes that it should Long theory so hold. No. 21231. shoremen’s Act is and Harbor Workers’ Appeals Court of United States duе, compensation even without District of Columbia Circuit. award, an controverting there for is valid basis Argued April 1968. claim, workman’s Moreover, 914(a) (1964). U.S.C. pensation com May 2, Decided 1968. paid must be under an award during pendency even review
proceeding employer unless thé can dem damage irreparable
onstrate con if 921(b) payments,
tinues
(1964). Any injunction stay or permissible only provided for if it See, Lines, g., though appeal by employee v. e. S.S. Inc. Eastern even an ; (1st Monahan, pending (or imminent), Cir. Corp. Liability Employеrs per- Assurance would arise whether this course was Hughes, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1959) 921(b) missible in view of 33 U.S.C. § J). (Weinfeld, contemplates payments proceed- til “final decision such indicate whether does not record ing.” point, without benefit pursuant payments termination of arguments, briefs or we intimate no view. injunction granted showing ir- an whether, Nor need wo consider employer reparable injury. de- If statutory penalty event a should be held unilaterally termined wrongful nonpayment, assessable setting the awаrd Court order aside provided remanding interest herein would constitute determination of extent of permitted payments disability against penalty. cease an offset
District Court for the District of Colum- bia, argued by counsel. thereof, it order- consideration adjudged by ed this court appealed judgment of Court hereby from in this сase is affirmed. McGOWAN, Judge: Circuit by I concur in the affirmance the court upon this the conviction before us claimed, appeal. Only two errors are involving these, and one the issue of adequate to whether there was evidence guilty, support jury’s does verdict of is an dictate reversal. other by trial court assertion of a failure committed to exercise the discretion respect a it admission of with to the impeach appellant’s conviction to Statеs, Luck v. United See U.S.App.D.C. 151, 121 (1965). by statute this Confronted 305) jurisdiction (14 D.C.Code § explicitly contemplates practice, I complete absence not find here that dо Henke, Washington, D. C. Michael J. of discretion which exercise (appointed by court) appellant. remand, although even the Gov- warrant Jr., Atty., Kelley, James E. Asst. U. S. рerhaps ernment have wished could Bress, Atty., with whom David G. U. S. initially the trial court had not ruled Q. Geoffrey Frank Nebeker and Al-M. hearing had to the defense before prin, Attys., Asst. U. S. ruling was, sаy. appellant’s But the brief, appellee. subject request, made to re- Before Wilbur K. Senior Cir- Miller, story after examination Judge, cuit and McGowan Tamm, reasons,1 told; and other and for this Judges. Circuit prepared rejection of I find no am requiring Luck reversal. JUDGMENT case, how circumstances PER CURIAM. point ever, peculiarly to to me seem dangers lurking in statute. As our This case came on to on the be heard indicates,2 put appeal record on law was the United its from Statеs testify, incompetent person is not A The trial did not have court available by proceedings, opinion civil or later in either our Gordon United States, U.S.Apр.D.C. 343, been convicted F.2d reason of 383 cert, denied, 1029, (1967), The fact of conviction crime. U.S. given to affect his evidence 20 L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. upon witness, the cross-exam- either in which considerations which by or the witness ination of court’s dis inform the exercise cross-examining party aliunde; and the in this area are discussed at cretion by аnswers as length. is not bound him years ago on the books almost for was revealed for the first time at primary removing argument us, he was disqualification brought ancient cоmmon law upon taking out the stand persons criminal records from testi that he had not had the nar- fying in either civil criminal cases. person cotics but had seen аnother apparently legisla There is no relevant the room throw them on the floor. The history, speculate tive so can trial request. court refused this *3 jury thе attainder continued to some surprising came in with the degree permissive employ in guilty the form of unusual verdict of under one stat- past impeach ment of сonviction guilty ute and not under the other. credibility. now only These facts need be recited be asked it should suggest impact in of what this case continue least further case of jury’s knowledge robbery con- criminal defendants who wish to might They viction well have been. in their own defense. speak eloquently than more words of the pretense juries hollowness of the Appellant in the case before us was can and do the formal heed instruction indicted under two federal narcоtics they regard prior must ostensibly against drug statutes directed conviction as relevant trafficking permit finding but which propensity than guilt to tell the truth rather of possession if there is evidence of to commit crime. unexplained. which is 26 U.S.C. (a) and 21 Conviction ago long the American As as under mandatory each statute entails a оf proposed a Model Code Law Institute imprisonment. minimum sentence of sought to blunt Evidence which against appellant The case consisted sole- рrosecutors in- weapon have —and ly testimony by police of officer that variably Commissioners use. appellant he containing saw throw vial same Lаws did the Uniform State heroin on police the floor. Another Rules proposal of Uniform their 1953 good officer with op- as or better an surely sup- not to be It Evidеnce.3 portunity appellant to observe testified engaged currently group posed that only that, although hap- this could have Prose- do less. in a similar task pended it, without his seen he greatly urgently ex- today need cutors appellant fact seen throw investigate pre- panded resources to away anything. appellant This left effectively. But sent criminal cases necessity der responding needs legislature face to these possessed evidence that he had narcotics. cut- content with remain rather than to He asked that a conviction for gotten aid with the rate convictions robbery (eleven yeаrs when, prior criminal records. prove such matters. To the conviction inadmissible for statement shall false certificate, seal, of crime credibility. impairing purpose clerk of the court wherein accused a crim- be the If the witness containing had, the conviction were stat- proceeding, con- evidеnce of his no inal ing the fact of conviction and shall admissible viction of a crime cause, is sufficient. impairing the sole has first introduced proposals substantially 3. The two solely pur- for the admissible point. used supporting pose the Uniform Rules is follows: of a Evidence of conviction witness involving dishonesty for a crime