*1 542
JUDGMENT Jr., Appellant, VENEY, F. Roland PER CURIAM.
v. the came on to be heard on America, These cases of UNITED STATES Appellee. appeals on United States record from the for the District of Colum- District Court BAYLOR, Appellant, Howard R. argued by bia, and counsel. were v. or- it is Whereof, On Consideration America, UNITED STATES of adjudged by the dered that and this court Appellee. judgments appealed of the Court District 18714, Nos. 18715. from in these cases are affirmed. Appeals United States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit. Judge WRIGHT, (concurring Circuit result): in the Argued 16, Nov. 1964. eye in four I the result because concur 4, Decided Feb. 1965. appellants par- as identified the witnesses Rehearing Petition for En Banc in 52(a), robbery. ticipants Rule in the 6,1965. May No. 18714 Denied however, like, I should Fed.R.Crim.P. Rehearing Petition for En Banc in to add a comment. 11, No. 18715 Denied March 1965. now been curious For some time I have by and about offered concerned evidence again Government, appearing the again and showing records, in criminal case lineup defendant, or other that the at the complaining wit- confrontation with the ness, had, presence and cus- while in the tody police, “spontaneously of and the voluntarily” apologized for his misdeed. “apologize” word not ordinar- The ily would expected in be to the vocabularies be poorly of of defend- most educated the were, if more ants. And even it it seemed strange, least, passing than that to me at phenomenon this of should as- contrition sert itself so soon the act. after offensive began mystery. I a to solve this search by my My efforts first rewarded dis- were covery styled Edwards, of the Fredricksen v. (appoint- case Mr. Carleton U. II States, 262, by U.S.App.D.C. 266 court), Washington, C., United 105 ed this D. for (1959), appellant F.2d in 463 which a statement in No. 18714. by lineup made the the was accused at (appointed Mr. Walter W. Woodside objec- Mallory1 ruled admissible a over by court), Woodside, Va., ap- this for tion. This court held that a violation pellant in No. 18715. 5(a), not of Rule did Fed.R.Crim.P., Q. Nebeker, Mr. Frank Asst. U. S. preclude of the admission the statement Atty., Acheson, with whom Mr. David C. “spontaneously” and because it was made Atty., brief, appellee. U. S. on the for was sugges- interrogation, as a of not result instigation police. tion or of the Before Circuit Prettyman, Senior Wright ruling Fredricksen, Judge, in and and and Cir- Since our McGowan, Judges. past, particularly cuit in the recent more States, 449, 1356, (1957). Mallory 1 L.Ed.2d
1. S.Ct. 1479 v. United 354 U.S. 77
543 by “spontaneous” ápologiés testimony interesting particularly defendants This is by brought and have been offered the since of Government each the defendants wás robbery received in evidence in the sep- criminal cases2 before of the victims frequency usually sup arately. with Unusual of Yet them each remembered to — by ported testimony apologies' apologize. the that suggested by inspired were not or the above, appears In of view the it to me 3 police.3 my discovery Thus of Fredrick- ripe that the time is for some soul search- apology sen and the raft which of cases ing prosecutor’s in the office it before solved, deepened, followed it rather than any “spontaneous” apologies offers more apology mystery. the in evidence. good mystery stories, But all like this apparently just becoming
one was most immediately
inscrutable before solution. may provided
For solution the have been
by present the case. here The record defendants,4
shows all that the on con- immediately frontation after their ar- rest, “apologized” to victims of the the HINTON, Appellant, Walter M. robbery. jury At least six times the was v. apologies. in told detail about these And America, UNITED of police STATES apologies the all testified the that Appellee. suggested by inspired were neither nor No. 18829. them. robbery
But of Appeals one the victims of the United States of Court District of Columbia Circuit. testified as follows: 17, March 1965. “By Me. French : Frank, Washington, Mr. Robert D. B. “Q right. Now, police All did the (appointed by court), C. this was on the anything officers do to encour- pleadings appellant. for age go up these defendants to you apologize? Acheson, Atty., to and Messrs. David C. S.U. Q. Nebeker, Atty., and Frank Asst. S.U. They “A policeman asked—the pleadings appellee. were on the for them, you asked say anything ‘Do to want Judge, people?’ Before Bazelon, to the Chief and Wright they Judges,, kept quiet. They And and McGowan, Circuit said, you in say Chambers. ‘Don’t want to anything?’ So, says, ‘Well, he ORDER apologize.’ I “The Court: Who said that? PER CURIAM. appellant’s,
“The Witness
On further consideration of
: All
three of them
pending ap-
thing.”
for
motion
reduction of bail
said the same
Apologies
Engram
2.
States,
under circumstances similar to
v. United
Misc. No. 2340.
D.D.C.,
those in
Walker,
this case were involved in sev
See also United States v.
acquit
(verdict
eral
cases in
recent
this court. See Ford
Criminal No. 1078-63
of
States,
17,-
1964)
21,
;
and Kimble v. United
tal
Nos.
returned March
Fuller v.
(appeal
Copeland
pending);
Columbia, D.C.C.A.,
3542,
835-6
of
v.
District
No.
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
-,
20,
United
120
decided November
1964.
(Nos. 18496-7,