United States v. Allen S. Bussey

(1968), to a claim that the officers confined S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d 906 authority holding announce their failed to enforcement of by 4704(a) contemplated appellant’s U.S.C. violate § § Fifth ap- pressed privilege against This issue is not Amendment 3109. peal, wisely, self-in- think, crimination. we view Since the submission of Instead, appellant appeal, Supreme of record. Court has con- issue, namely, that the ac- principle raises a new sidered the Marchetti-Grosso police preventing appellant 4705(a). tion of the in relation to Its decision in swallowing States, narcotics conflicted Minor v. United 396 U.S. (1969), also, either the Fourth or Fifth Amend- S.Ct. 24 L.Ed.2d 283 think, however, think, dispositive We appellant’s ments. we claim police respect action record shows reasonable of the statute under which he circumstances, convicted, under the establishing and is far from 4704(a). has been i. e. As brutality. possible undue force or to other Fifth Amendment California, objections See 757, statute, Schmerber v. 384 U.S. this latter L.Ed.2d these have been turned aside United California, Turner, Unlike Rochin v. States v. 396 U.S. 90 S.Ct. U.S. 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. 183 610 (1970). L.Ed.2d (1952), relies, upon appellant Affirmed. prevent officers here acted to the de- struction evidence in the course of

the execution of a valid warrant.

II points were raised for

Two appeal, notice

the first time on and we derive from them because UNITED STATES of America alleged supervening de what velopments the law. One is the claim BUSSEY, Appellant. Allen S. seven-year appellant’s is a sentence No. 22919. punishment barred cruel and unusual Eighth pre Amendment.3 We note the liminarily United Appeals, States Court of District of Columbia that this is not Circuit. record devoid significant any appel indication that Argued 17, 1970. April lant In trafficker narcotics. July Decided event, day decision en bane this our Rehearing Petition for 5, 1970. Denied Oct. (No. 21,186) Watson v. States that, on the record before conclusive pro us and the course taken Court,

ceedings appellant in the District ground. to relief on this

is not entitled

The other contention invokes Marchetti v. United 390 U.S. 19 L.Ed.2d 889

Grosso United post-conviction assertedly unacceptable prosecutorial motion to the trial or, alternatively, proceed court for reconsideration discretion to under the federal trial, for a new averred the narcotics statutes rather than those con- invalidity Eighth under Amendment tained in the D.C.Code. See Hutcherson mandatory punishment U.S.App.D.C. 274, minimum v. United exposed by which he was his conviction. argument But his was cast in terms of Church, Hammer, G. William Falls Mr. (appointed Court) ap-

Va. pellant. Stein,

Mr. John Ellsworth Asst. S.U. Atty., with Thomas A. whom Messrs. Terry, Flannery, Atty., U. S. and John A. brief, Atty., Asst. U. S. were on the appellee. BAZELON, Judge,

Before Chief WRIGHT, Judge, Circuit and MATT Judge. HEWS* Senior District * Sitting by designation pursuant 292(a). 28, U.S.Code, to Title Section jury’s ten- Judge: arise from BAZELON, would udice Chief dency from the the evidence to cumulate challenges Appellant his convictions infer a criminal offenses and to various Sewing robbing Machine the Edison Bussey’s part. disposition on He also Road, Company at 2626 tangible, pointed per- “less but 23,1968; N.E., February at 4:20 m. prej- haps equally persuasive, element of he contends that * * * feeling in latent udice hostility a permitted hear evidence have been charging engendered robbed that he also which indicated several crimes as distinct from one.” Company, 2912 the General Transmission Drew v. United 118 Bladensburg Road, N.E., at o’clockthat 4 11, 14, F.2d Accord- Bussey did not take stand afternoon. ingly, the District denied the Gov- Court girlfriend himself, but his testified ernment’s motion to consolidate. he in was with her at her house South Washington p. east from 12:30 m. Drew, same in “[t]he weAs observed period except m., 8:30 for the from dangers appear when to exist” 3:50, approximately 3:20 to admitted crime is of one buy went out to a sandwich and some crimes two as “when another offense attempted present The medicine. Government joined trial.” Yet by present discredit this alibi evidence ex- which case the evidence ing, objections, over defense two wit judge’s refusal one district cluded permit joinder nesses to the General Transmission hold another allowed up, Furthermore, who testified to the details of the appellant’s trial. robbery Bussey against identified admitting one of up runs this evidence * * * perpetrators. time, the paper At that, upon news “general rule recounting article the two rob person, the trial of an accused jury.2 beries was also read to the offense, wholly independent This of another newspaper clipping had been identified charged, inadmissible.” the one during the Government’s case-in-chief as Bracey U.S.App. having Bussey been found on denied, when he D.C. cert. February 26, arrested on 1968. U.S. (1944).4 The con- Government I. tends, however, properly exceptions trial, under admitted Prior to moved rule, “identity” proved because it to consolidate the for the trials two robberies, because the two were “so under crimes F.R. Crim.P. 8. nearly opposed identical arguing method as to ear- motion, prej- escaped locking Luggi robbery, 1. after and the em- was convicted of 22 D.C. ployees Code in the closet. and of three § of as- counts dangerous weapon, “In the second trio took $1000 sault with a 22 D.C. register at from the safe and cash Edison Code 502. Sales The text of article reads as follows: Road, Northeast.” early “Two armed men in their twenties employees shop robbed of a transmission Drew v. United Bladensburg Road, Northeast, al- 11, 16, police yesterday, reported. $200 most past answering criminal the accused’s Five later two men “Evidence of minutes * * * traditionally descriptions along history man, [has] their with a third Anglo-American supply walked an viewed with distrust into electrical house Note, away Evidence Crimes law.” Other $1000. three blocks and stole about citing Trial, money pair L.J. 70 Yale “Police said the took from McCormick, Luggi, 41, Evidence the wallets of Albert employees Luggi’s Wigmore, 193-194 Evidence §§ com- transmission pany Bladensburg Road, North- at 1912 holdup people east, p.m. about 4:20 outweigh likelihood sufficient ac- handiwork as the them mark draw it would cause cused.” appellant had “improper inference” recognized in a recently weAs “disposition crime.”8 to commit exercising area, the trial related evi- admission over its discretion II. “weigh probative value must * * * the Gen A. The of the convictions did degree prejudice revelation Transmission witnesses which eral * * particular pattern the two past would cause.”6 crimes evince prejudice” large mark them “potential robberies would distinctly the same of evidence “handiwork” the admission we detected robb to the two is exceeded men. The facts common convictions distinguish flammatory impact by them the “other crimes” do not eries9 this any number which have come before involved here. evidence of sort situation, jurors persons recently, for which and Luck-Gordon veracity appellant have convicte than been to a defendant’s are asked doubt documentary was simple The of conduct the robbers of d.10 on the basis certainly not distinctive “so unusual and conviction record society,” signature.”11 already “paid was as be like Nor his debt to to has “identity” present situation, they probative of as were while presented concept traditionally em a crim- with the full details of has ployed. not iden inal act the defendant had The fact that the witnesses yet appellant punished.7 participant tified been convicted punish temptation holdup him crimes General Transmission fell short both showing great. his, undoubtedly very was Accord-' “former conduct ingly, pro- perpetra we must known to decide whether be the conduct 12 robbery.13 question bative value tor” the evidence Edison McCormick, (or three) 5. Evidence 9. facts men § at 328 Those were that cited in Gov’t Brief at entered a store of an 9. and asked employee, present ordered those then States, U.S.App. 6. Gordon v. United 127 money on the while lie floor took 343, 346, (1967). D.C. 383 F.2d finally register, and from the cash locked States, U.S.App. See Luck v. United escaped. and the victims in a backroom (1965). D.C. See, g., Randolph, e. 10. States v. United present 7. The evidence introduced in the 23,222 April 27, 1970) ; (argued No. subject objection case was to another Young (Harris Johnson) & United v. cases, noted in the Luek-Gordon because 21,857 States, 21,756-57 (argued & Nos. it was evidence of when ; 1970) v. March Mc- United States robbery. was on trial for This can U.S.App.D.C. 60, Coy, pressure serve to increase “the inevitable 19, 1970). (argued April lay jurors if believe that he did it be- McCormick, (3), at 328 Evidence probably fore he did so this time.” (1954). Gordon, supra, note Note, See 383 F.2d at 940. at Other 306(2) Wigmore, Evidence supra Evidence, note Crimes at 773: cautionary adds the McCormick “[Similarity the other between crime and apply- are stricter that “courts when note the crime will tend to increase relevancy ing their standards jury’s the accused both bias prove the state ultimate probative worth * * and the evidence.” they are when than is- on the ultimate offered the evidence is supra States, note Drew United knowledge, intent or other state sue of F.2d at 89. Cf. McCormick, Evidence § mind.” U.S.App. Barnes (convic- 318, 365 D.C. F.2d “identity” closely-related jury could infer that tion reversed where 13. The largely de- were rationales criminal record from accused “mug “handiwork” placed evidence). veloped first for the the Government shot” inflammatory however, outweigh ef- did, its ficient This jury. the other evi- fect on While Transmis the General

place strong, appellant’s time when aat said “that the error did her. cannot with home he was witness said jurors jury.”15 fluence the rebuttal such, admissible it was As substantially disbelieved the Edison Bracey testimony. v. United her returned their witnesses still have supra,. examination the direct But guilty on the basis of the Gen- verdict was witnesses Transmission the General testimony. eral Transmission witnesses’ scrupulous care to “presented allowing Consequently, we conclude that avoid intimation prej- into was engaged rob appellan[t] in another udicial error.16 bery issue.” one before minutes U.S.App. Hood v. United Moreover, given no instruction was 16, 18, D.C. admitted, time this limiting Rather the witnesses than jurors pur- caution the on the limited rebutting alibi, prose being pose received, for which it was cutor invited them to “tell us [the reality it blinks to think that on the jury] the details” given part basis of the instruction holdup.14 The admission charge-in-chief17 error; probative of this evidence its capable gymnastic”18 “mental point value on the relevant insuf- appellate appeal. they the left reason, is without doubt time on For this process support that one who claims its corrective lack in the record the below where is, all, guilty.” 615, testimony after Id. at 66 S.Ct. of the General Transmission at 406. rebuttal, witnesses was offered in al- though “identity” and “handiwork” evi- “You instructed that evidence has part should the Government’s been that the introduced defendant com- case-in-chief. mitted an offense similar nature to the below Defense counsel focused his ob- one evidence, he is now on [for] which trial. This jections scope the of the to “other crimes” respect that is with to General precisely. evidence rather When the solely Transmission, was admitted prosecutor first indicated that he intended your consideration whether it to tends call to the General witness- Transmission show the the defendant as the es, although defense counsel stated that person who the committed offenses at object one “cannot to” charged Edison Sales with which he is places a defendant “in the the area at required You here. are not to consid- so crime, “strenuously time” of the he would er this the evidence of General Transmis- object” if the witnesses were called on to robbery. you Whether do so or testify in rebuttal to the that your a matter within exclusive “being were at robbed” that time. province. You not consider it as tending respect other the show in States, 15. Kotteakos v. United 328 U.S. the defendant’s offenses of which 750, 1239, 764, 1247, 66 S.Ct. he is here.” Cf. Hawkins v. United objected Appellant giving this States, 79, 136, 74, 358 U.S. note instruction. We are constrained to (1958) ; L.Ed.2d Bollenbach v. jury charge that the “instructed” the that States, 607, 613-614, 326 U.S. United the “an offense similar evidence showed (1946) ; 402, S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. 350 United yet trial; in nature” the on one Schor, 26, (2d States Cir. “identity” properly extent the issue was 1969) ; States, Macklin v. United similarity jury, before the lay U.S.App.D.C. 347, jury the what the had to heart of 16. As observed Mr. Justice Frankfurter decide. argument concerning an which would States, appellate jury’s the court the Nash “transfer to 1932) (L. Hand). measuring evidence,” also See Cir. function the Bol- supra 336 U.S. Krulewitch v. United note lenbach v. United 93 L.Ed. 790 “the S.Ct. 66 S.Ct. at 326 U.S. at judicial concurring) (Jackson, J., pre- swing : “The pendulum need not prejudicial assumption suming effects to be if naive all errors ‘harmless’ “any disregarding the in this Since case was an this evidence alleged per- except crime which re- respect” the one been judgment, duced “hazard” to a final the court the trial court. mitted should ignore “con- also have conducted an initial will even limiting inquiry, jury’s presence,22 cededly out of instructions clear” determine that if the defendant “the was con- leaves the situation same nected with the other at all.” crime “clear there no instruction convincing evidence,” before allow- Bruton v. United ing to hear the L.Ed.2d details of the holdup.23 General (1968).19 prejudice Transmission Thus the of evidence admission newspaper B. ap- article found on alleged was not cured. other offense pellant after he was arrested was head- ed prejudice “Two Firms It Robbed Five unfortunate Minutes.” unnecessary; occurred, conveyed The text of article impression strong ease without robberies had been “along holdup, men, committed evidence of re- same the other and the with a easily third man” buttal itself have could rob- second bery. words, kept proper within Had bounds. admission of newspaper clipping attempted posed defense counsel on cross-ex- the same dangers amination cast doubt on the witnesses’ witnesses, recollection that was in the auto shop o’clock, troduced opportunity an one crime into explain have arisen for them another. But the rea- suf- they definitely fered from liability sons the added noth- remembered that ing it actually related was there.20 To introduce this testi- substantiated mony, prosecutor inference per- that the same re- men had petrated quested, bench, holdups; both descriptions that the trial no given rule were whether the other crimes robbers themselves “necessary” their conduct which would therefore admis- show “iden- 24 tity” despite sible inflammatory its similar “handiwork.” More- content.21 by Denno, 22. 368, can Jackson v. overcome 378 U.S. 84 instructions Cf. * * * 1774, (1964) ; S.Ct. practicing lawyers 12 L.Ed.2d 908 all supra Gordon, 6, unmitigated note know to be 127 fiction.” 348, 941; supra Barnes, at 383 F.2d at Burgett Texas, 109, See also v. 8, note 124 at 365 F. (1967), 88 S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d 319 hearing at 2d Such in is accord where the held Court the admission judge’s “preliminary role as “constitutionally infirm” crim- Wigmore, tester” of the evidence. Evi- inal conviction was not rendered harmless 411 Chapman California, error under 386 U.S. L.Ed.2d 23. See Smith v. United 124 U.S. by “the instructions to disre- App.D.C. 57, 58 n. n. gard it.” (1966) ; State, Wrather v. 179 Tenn. 666, 678, Fitzpatrick (1943) S.W.2d Cf. (rejecting requirement 304, 315-316, that other U.S. crime “beyond be shown reasonable doubt” in convincing” favor of “clear and 21. Evidence of other eximes is not neces- test). sary prosecution’s when the other evidence overwhelming. circumstances, is In such by 24. At least some of facts related only meaningful “the effect of other are, fact, the article inaccurate. For prejudice crimes evidence would be to example, is located jury against Note, the accused.” Other Bladensburg Boad, 1912; supra Evidence, Crimes note at 771. only was stolen from the Edison Sale $640 hand, prosecution On the other Company, not “about $1000.” not be allowed to introduce such evidence automatically, merely on the claim that is a case “close” one. might variety over, proof de- of motives” which of what if taken as clearly the article to have scribed, have have caused article would standing Although alone hearsay. with him.25 been inadmissible such without the admission article attempted to re- not warrant an instruction telling problem avoid this versal, supplies a further we believe truth rely “for article not to on the ground in this for reversal26 case testimony. therein.” contained of the statements considered with the fact, the real value apparent, It is Furthermore, rele- since the article was this evidence all, vant, if conscious- to show someone who on the inference based defense ness of case, and not to rebut the describing possesses a crime con- its admission should crime. person who committed is the prosecution’s fined to ease-in-chief.27 certainly not un an inference is Such for a new Reversed and remanded reasonable; con innocuous noncriminal trial. give in rise to the sometimes duct (1) person con has a ferences Judge MATTHEWS, Senior District (2) per guilty, that a sciousness dissenting: guilty. guilty is son who thinks himself But, conduct, the like all human actions appeal On this Albert S. giving rise to such inferences are robbery from his conviction and of ambiguity. in without If a crime is dangerous weapon, three assaults with a teresting enough newspaper merit a whether the trial story, reasoning by parity then admitting erred in evidence offered story interesting enough clipped. to be government rebut alibi de- Everyone probably has time interposed by Bussey some fense and to iden- caught tify cut out a news article him as the who committed eye, although he was not involved the crimes for which he was on trial. challenged events described the article. The evidence tended to show * * * The “weakness of the Bussey [the] robbery by commission of another suggests ference” involved here that the vicinity shortly the same trial jury should have cautioned the before of which he was ** explanation with “a fuller convicted.1 U.S.App. 25. Austin v. United slightest character does not stand 259, 261, way D.C. receiving the same acts in (instruction “flight” from scene of evidence if are evidential for other crime). purposes.” Wigmore, Evidence, § p. (3rd ed., 1940). any “If there is 26. We note that after was con- proposition, other material or evidential present case, pleaded victed in the he for it which act [an is misconduct] guilty to the General Transmission rob- relevant, pur- and if it is offered for that bery and was sentenced to five to fifteen pose, receivable, quality it and its as years, concurrently to run with his sen- misconduct or crime does not stand in the Mary- tence in case. See Benton v. this way.” Id., p. land, heading Professor Wharton under a en- L.Ed.2d 707 titled “Rebuttal of Defenses” states: 27. Should the Government choose to refer “When the seeks to rebut a Bussey’s retrial, the article defense, may prove it facts which tend clipping should be limited so as to exclude to show the commission of another crime all references to the General Transmis- the defendant. an alibi When is of- robbery. accomplished, This could be fered the accused to show that he could example, by using stipulation for a charged, not have committed the crime Bussey had on him a which re- may evidence of another offense be shown robbery. counted the Edison prove vicinity that he was Evidence, Wharton, time.” Criminal Wigmore 1. Dean observes that “the fact (12th 243 at 561 acts of a defendant’s misconduct showing be inadmissible as his bad would charge judge charges Bussey con- was his the trial instructed of which jury holdup purpose the Edi- grew limited for out victed testimony Sewing Company this rebuttal of 2626 was re- Machine son He said: Bladensburg ceived. Wash- Road Northeast ington in the afternoon about 4:20 you “Ladies gentlemen, February 23, trial two 1968. At heard case testi- holdup present iden- at the the victims mony concerning witnesses a Bussey, distinctive his tified described robbery at the General Transmission weapon carrying, coat, Company on Road. You the hold- the manner of the execution of are instructed that evidence has up. introduced the defendant com- girl

Bussey’s witness, mitted an offense one alibi his similar in nature friend, February to the one testified that on which he is [for] now Bussey evidence, holdup) trial. This (the day that is of the with re- spect Transmission, Washington to General with her Southeast p. solely your m. admitted for 12:30 until a few minutes after consideration twenty-five identity whether 3 m. when he left her for tends to show the get person defendant minutes to medicine, sandwich and some as the who again committed the then was with her offenses at Edison Sales approximately charged until ning. which he 8:30 eve- that same You here. required Bussey’s through girl are not effort so to consider of the friend to establish an raised alibi an identity. robbery. you issue of Whether do so your is matter within ex- Although government two wit- province. clusive You con- Bussey positively identified who nesses tending sider it as to show in Bussey’s holdup, participant aas respect the defendant’s of the definitely placed just as witness one alibi offenses which he is here.” holdup time the at the him elsewhere testified to The alibi witness The trial the time occurred. Bussey testimony acquaintance with an intimate admission rebuttal government apparently the two cautioned while should have purpose identified who re- witnesses limited however, eyes so, on him laid ceived. His failure to do never error, holdup. these circumstances the Under was harmless as there was government pur- offered evidence for the short interval between admission of rebutting pose judge’s defense and the rebuttal and establishing charge gave ade- which he quate the offenses who committed instructions as to identifica- charged. tion testi- which the rebuttal mony be considered. question con-

The rebuttal evidence in newspaper Concerning newspaper clipping and a sisted ad- import clipping. evidence, police mitted as rebuttal de- immediately preceding government was that minutes tective testified engaged holdup Bussey the Edison its case in chief that was while holdup a General Transmission arrest the Twelfth Precinct after his Whitted, located at 2912 he was one visited David Road, Northeast, trying about two and one- was observed to transfer paper dropped. half blocks the location of the Edi- to which Whitted Whitted robbery being son for which he was tried. The detective further testified that he robbery paper retrieved This General Transmission took it. is the news- place-at paper p. clipping which, subsequent m. while the rob- Edison bery testimony, occurred about 4:20 defense m. was as received judge denied, The trial twice cert. rebuttal evidence. (1928). pur- Following to the limited con cautioned the as received, viction, testimony pose clipping for the was the admission of this admitted, again assigned appeal, the once when it was as error. On charge. his He made clear that was court said: * * truth of state- the the admitted for “We think that the testi- told the therein. He ments contained jury mony identify competent to the clipping was received “sole- that the pistols accused as the owners the ly weight” for whatever at the homicide. time of the The court they in their believe consideration carefully instructed the the that testimony the possession detective’s testimony pur- was admitted at- and was pose fact, only, and that the if such tempting of it. rid himself to appeared, separate prior that a crime procurement involved Ordinarily upon the trial of an ac- pistols by got the accused ‘has ab- government cannot, person cused part as nothing solutely to whatever do with proof of its the defendant guilty question of whether guilty charged, of a crime include evi- charged against of this that is crime has committed another ” them here.’ crime But or crimes. this doctrine application made A more recent should not be so far as to ex- carried Gay, United States v. clude evidence which has a ten- direct (1969), of rule dency prove particular crime or admissibility regarding of evidence crimes for which defendant is on trial. specific prove the crime to another “Generally speaking, of other charged, lar- in a crime specific prove competent to crimes is ceny admitted the trial after trust charged it tends to establish crime government witnesses of two intent; (1) (3) motive; (2) ab- dealings de- with the their about accident; (4) a com- sence of or mistake similar to fendant under circumstances embracing plan com- mon scheme or complainant those crimes so related mission of two more allegedly case was victimized. The Unit- proof each one tends Appeals ed held that States Court others; establish the directly “was with the commis- of sion added.) illuminative” of the state mind (Emphasis the crime on trial.” the accused “in conver- relation Molineux, People 168 N.Y. sion” and “fitted well within the estab- 62 L.R.A. N.E. rule, jurisdiction lished else- in this the evidence “When where, judge may that a trial allow evi- important to is relevant and one these prove dence of criminal acts similar generally five issues, it is conceded that prejudicial intent if effect of admis- outweighed prejudicial the by effect ‘outweighed by probative val- probative value.” Drew v. Unit- ue’ of the 410 F.2d at 1039. evidence.” U.S.App.D.C. 11, 16, ed The case at is similar an Ohio bar Judge Stephens in case which jurisdiction concurring opinion At a trial in this in Martin murder v. Unit- prove the court admitted ed pistols referred certain of the found near having place helpful shooting discussion the rule where the occurred competency obtained defendants prove particular separate perpetrated by another crime to crime robberies Virginia is on them in which a trial. The defendant several weeks before by Judge Stephens Eagles the case mentioned homicide. Ohio State, App.D.C. Ohio St. is Whiteman v. purchase in the the robbers A.L.R. N.E. drawing product, a sudden followed returned indictments Three pistols pistols; placing the charging the defendants, each forcing victim, the and then head of a Novem- date in different on a on the lie the floor while victims to the concerned first The ber alleged robbery ultimately, money proceeded; search for The 20th. of November herding the into a backroom victims sought an alibi. to establish defense accompanied good escape their make White- the defendant conviction —all After degree violence, form the some ground the appealed man hitting. kicking, slapping The admitting erred in trial court lo- two robberies occurred in businesses for he was robberies of the two apart cated than 3 and within less blocks on trial. The time interval of minutes. Holding there was no error regarded similar- well have these challenged evidence, the admission of Bussey’s ities as sufficient to establish part: Supreme said in Court Ohio beyond a reasonable doubt. province my challenged opinion “It testimony was identify Bussey whether determine admissible say relevant; legally wheth- particular who of- committed the case the circumstances trial, er for under fenses which was on misleading essentially or negative be it would rebut and his alibi defense. Having determined probative too remote. such out- value of relevant, legally weighed it was prejudicial it was its effect. probative value. its jury to determine I would affirm. question of primarily a While it only issue, being identity, tending ruled that evidence trial court method, system would plan, to show identity, question of relevant to having also been these defendants persons commit-

identified who ted the other offenses. larger induction, is one of and the Barbara L. WILMOTH number of facts the more consistent complete the induction. It was for UNITED STATES to determine there some Haley June Wilmoth system relation between the followed Wilmoth, Appellant. Florence J. in the offense in the indict- No. 23189. systems pursued ment Appeals, United States Court of offenses, and was District of Columbia Circuit. to determine whether there was suf- Argued June large ficiently number consistent identity beyond facts to establish the 12, 1970. Aug. Decided a reasonable doubt.” 164 N.E. 54-55. Rehearing Petition Denied Sept. of each case victims In the instant alleged testified and robberies positive identification made participant testi- Their as a therein. clothing

mony regarding worn agreement. practical weapons used was strong sim- Their revealed

ilarity two rob- the execution feigned beries, interest initial wit:

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Allen S. Bussey

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Oct 5, 1970

Citation: 432 F.2d 1330

Docket Number: 22919

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.