United States v. William Bush, A/K/A William Turner

1227 (8th Cir.1982) comply 736, (awarding quired Safety with the AMC 738-39 F.2d 385-100, to contractor Manual AMC manual did not government contract of safety safety procedures.7 manual are discre railroad of describe Fur promulgation functions); ther, v. United delegate responsibility Blaber decision to tionary Cir.1964)(del 629, (2d 631 States, safety Chrysler 332 on a for was based indepen safety responsibility to egation perception by government negotiators that function); discretionary is dent contractor Chrysler prudent capable was a contractor 96, States, F.Supp. 546 Maltais United program.8 implementing safety its own 1442 (N.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 729 F.2d 101 cited in These facts establish that the acts Cir.1983) (2d (government decision to dele appellees’ complaint constitute discretion is a safety responsibility to contractor gate ary functions over which the district court despite govern discretionary function jurisdiction. lacked right inspect and retention of the ment’s above, expressed For the reasons work). stop is of the district court VACAT- to dele The United States’ decisions ED and the case is REMANDED with in- Chrysler, to gate safety responsibility to appellees’ complaint. structions to dismiss Chrysler’s only “spot checks” of conduct safety programs, and to not institute a

safety training program railyard work discretionary clearly type

ers are § 2680(a). protected by 28 functions U.S.C. the United The evidence established that America, UNITED STATES of respon safety primarily office was States’ Plaintiff-Appellee, safety government employ sible for the ees, plant by government that access to the BUSH, William Turner, William a/k/a “spot to make checks” was limit inspectors Defendant-Appellant. Chrysler security clear by ed the need for ance, safety that the United States’ No. 83-2147. Chrysler change its staff could not order Appeals, Court of practices. government’s safety safety Seventh Circuit. safety re testified that decisions director Argued 9, Feb. 1984. specific plant areas of the garding accident rates those areas. based Decided Dec. 1984. rely “spot checks” or The decision to Certiorari 18, 1985. Denied March along accident rates to review with annual See 105 S.Ct. 1771. essence, is, priorities safety establish decision, involving the exercise of policy Chrysler re- Although

discretion. contract); discretionary exception incorporated by reference into the function 7. While guidelines States, apply mandatory F.Supp. does not Barron v. United 1084 violated, Flying regulations (9th Acade- (D.Hawaii 1979), are Colorado modified, 654 F.2d 644 Inc., 875; Brand, Jayvee my, F.2d at Inc. v. Cir.1981) (failure safety problems not to correct States, (D.C.Cir.1983); 721 F.2d discretionary disregarded sig- where contractor States, (7th Hylin United 715 F.2d contract). safety requirements nificant States, Cir.1983); Bergmann v. United Further, provided provi- the contract (8th Cir.1982); Reminga v. United applied sions of the Manual would be as manda- Cir.1980), this rule tory only mutually agreed upon by "when inapplicable neither is in this case since parties.” supra, See note 3. Safety AMC nor other AMC Manual 385-100 specific safety required provision the contract Airlines, Similarly, Varig 8. Court noted Madison, railyard. See measures employees specifically FAA ... were that "[t]he (failure by States to re- F.2d at 739-40 judgments empowered policy regarding to make compliance safety was not a quire manual degree might reasonably of confidence that discretionary government knew act where placed given in a manufacturer." Id. at safety pre- safety specific violations safety manual cautions were O’Leary, Michael J. Atty., Asst. U.S. Ger Fines, Atty., Peoria, Ill., ald D. U.S. for plaintiff-appellee. Chicago, Listrom, Block,

Linda L. Jenner & ll., defendant-appellant. I Coffey, Judge, concurring Circuit filed COFFEY, Before Judge, opinion. PELL, FAIRCHILD and Senior Circuit

Judges.

FAIRCHILD, Judge. Senior Circuit Appellant Bush was convicted of armed federally savings insured loan association. Princeton, Illinois branch of a sav-

ings and loan association just was robbed closing January before on 1980. Tell- ers Karen Metternich and Rita Miller were duty. Ms. Metternich testified that a her, man entered and conversed with ask- ing to the directions restroom. He started direction, in that but then returned to the counter. through gate He came into the teller area and told the tellers this was a displayed He handgun. About that time a second man came in and stood in front of Ms. Metternich’s window. The second man told Ms. Metternich not anything. to touch The first man took money from the drawers. The men then directed the tellers to a closet and told stay them to in it. The tellers remained they until heard the back door shut. Ms. Miller generally testified to the same although effect she remembered that gun. second man had the Although the testimony recounting tellers’ the men’s acts and statements often did not ascribe them exterior directly the safe from an made clear into one, phrasing particular to a contained The smaller white box men chute. understanding both the tellers’ mailed and had been deposit tickets blank together. acting testified that Miller to the association. that defendant testified Metternich Ms. deposit tickets are of blank boxes white man, could not first but “resembles” top of the safe normally kept on the shelf man. Ms. that he was the state positively until needed. She to the blue box close thought she she asked whether Miller was only explanation for the white indicated an- the men. She identify either of could robbery after the being on the floor box one, swered, I think with “The first don’t had moved it or that the two robbers was the sec- certainty. And I’m not sure about to the area of the bank dropped it. Access ond one either.” located is restricted to where the safe is fin and crime scene technician A state employees. There was bank accepted by the gerprint examiner employee an that Bush had never been expert in fields. About as an those court depositor. robbery he had secured after the two hours reached the It is clear that the two boxes the first from a blue box on prints latent through different channels. association from a white the safe and smaller shelf of things very highly it is im- the nature of the safe. He floor in front of on the box at time before the probable that some opinion print that in his testified mailed to the associa- box had been white print of defend a known matched blue box tion, together had the two been boxes from the print and a right thumb ant’s Bush han- location or channel some left thumb.1 matched defendant’s white box he had handled each of them or that dled Sufficiency Evidence I. of they in different locations them while were point is that principal Appellant’s prop- We think the or channels. dispel a sufficient to possibility evidence was not erly disregard the mere left prints doubt that things might happened, reasonable have and these doubt, course of the rob during find, on the boxes beyond a reasonable bery. them the course of had his hands on concerning nothing shows

The record As to the white history holding of the blue box. in so arises hesitation Our box, it was received very it shows majority distin- out of a decision is, It mail from another bank. guished court. Borum v. United course, appellant theoretically possible that (D.C.Cir.1967). Judge Chief the boxes on handled each of court. opinion have Bazelon wrote the manu- occasions their Skelly Wright earlier between concurred Judge some J. Justice, use receipt their and Judge, facture and Chief then Circuit now The Govern- savings and loan association. Burger dissented. contact was prove that earlier

ment did not Borum, had con- the defendant been however, conclude, impossible. We housebreaking. A collection coin victed possi- mere so that the enough was shown during the break-in taken been law, compel, as a matter bility does not found on two fingerprints were Borum’s reasonable doubt. the collec- had contained glass jars which prints that the There was evidence tion. that the blue box Ms. Miller testified “indefinitely” jars could have been the associa- ordinary envelope an box years.” “The period Govern- or “for dropped night deposits tion used to catch ultimately suspicion led to of Bush the offenses January Bush 1980. 1. The occurred compari- concerning issue and to the offense at trial oc- was indicted December fingerprints. court was satisfied that son of hearing a motion April curred 1983. At a was first made avail- tip the relevant information appeared dismiss it that a confidential around Au- authorities in this case able to the an authorities as to Bush’s involvement other gust 1982. between city and similarities offense another conviction, the upholding no evidence which could the defendant’s merit introduced for, explained suggest or even inference Ninth Circuit that: account about, custody jars or location fin- of the defendant’s period.... during that With evidence so inside the gerprints upon battery one inconclusive, person a reasonable must might well insuffi- flashlight reasonable about Borum’s have a doubt cient circumstantial evidence survive a guilt.” 380 at 596-97. acquittal. motion for But when that evi- Burger Judge concluded was reversed.2 positive finger- dence is combined with majority going beyond print upon the Association’s sto- requirement proof beyond checks, len cheek its stolen travelers beyond requiring proof doubt and all and ring tight- of circumstantial evidence every doubt. 380 F.2d at agree ens around defendant. We justified with the trial that it sub- Appellant also relies on United States v. jury. mission to the Lonsdale, Id. at 662. also See United States Tal- Lonsdale, thumbprint In defendant’s bert, (9th Cir.1983) 710 F.2d 530-31 unlawfully was found on an uttered United unlikely (extremely that out of one hundred treasury check States cheek. The was en bowling pins innocently touched name, dorsed as well with murder). the one used in name, payee’s the and bore defendant’s security social The Fifth reviewing number. Circuit these cases court in a only “truly damning jury finding guilt found the evidence” made a improbability introduced the Government was the the extreme theoretically of a thumbprint possible The court cheek.3 noted event and decided that acknowl- prove edgement that the Government was reasonable doubt not check, compelled law, [just] ques- the defendant “uttered the not as a matter of and the properly that he touched it.” 577 F.2d at 926. The tion could jury. be left to the that concluded without evidence that But or not whether we would have decid- opportunity the defendant had no to touch ed present- the same as if Borum court pri the check under innocent circumstances facts, ed with identical we conclude here cashed, time or to the it was the Govern that the evidence did not establish reason- not ment had met its Id. at burden. 927. law, able doubt as a matter of and finding

The declined to guilt Ninth has find was left free make a beyond doubt as matter in a of law a reasonable doubt. a defendant has relied on cases where Bo- Appellant argues in addition that even rum or Lonsdale. there is sufficient evidence of his Scott, there partic- is insufficient evidence he that Cir.1971) ipated in argument was convicted of The has savings theft a federal and loan not fingerprint placed asso- merit. The presented against counter, reaching ciation. The evidence him back of the into the fingerprints touching him at trial consisted his safe the boxes. Ms. Metter- battery flashlight found on a nich inside left testified that while one took man cash finger- at the of the her anything. scene crime other told not to touch print blank on a packet on a check and of Ms. Miller testified that one said man “We money. travelers checks taken the theft. In want That’s we all want.” day, Judge expert handwriting decided 3. The In case the same Bazelon Government’s testified opinion upholding in an concurred convictions there no were similarities between the housebreaking for because defend signed endorsements and defendant’s handwrit- fingerprints objects ant's had were found ing though might purposely it dis- in been from three to owner's home guised. years twelve before the Stevenson v. break-in. (D.C.Cir. 594-95 J., 1967) (Bazelon, concurring). context, months, note that testimony, made trator for five we must The .tellers’ yet acted in a criminal trial as has the men a defendant clear their belief lineup. right to an no in-court concert. Moss, (3d Cir. Testimony as Resemblance II. Moreover, 1969). testimony Kent’s Mrs. Metternich, asked Ms. prosecutor credible unshaken after a remained anybody in the courtroom you see here “Do by compe thorough cross-examination men the two today that resembles one of arguments counsel. Petitioner’s tent ?” you day on that ... who robbed arguments properly here were which he defendant, Pointing answered out she jury during trial. Mrs. made to objec- no him.” There was “He resembles neither so unrelia Kent’s . she testified tion. On cross-examination ble, fraught possibility so nor the man who the resemblance was to petitioner was de misidentification that bank, that she first entered but nied a fair trial. inconsistencies What state whether he was positively existed, properly and not suggests Nothing in record robber. reviewing court to consider. any prior out-of-court identification. original). (emphasis F.2d at 755-56 sugges- argues that this was a Appellant Fike, decision reached procedure which denied identification tive question possible suggestiveness of law. process due ultimately the in-court identification was of an question whether conditions determine, is consistent with sug so itself in-court identification general testimo view process a gestive deny as to defendant due ny jury weigh is for the to unless there is only a few by of law has been considered very irreparable “a substantial likelihood of appeals. courts of federal misidentification.” v. Simmons Fike, F.2d 750 rel. v. 538 States ex Clark 377, 967, 971, 384, 390 U.S. 88 S.Ct. (7th Cir.1976), peti this court dealt with a (1968). L.Ed.2d 1247 19 corpus of based tion for a writ habeas weigh- The deference shown challenge to part a in-court identification ing reliability potentially suggestive of prosecution. in an Illinois Peti testimony identification would seem even out-of-court testimony tioner contended appropriate more for in-court identifica- princi inherently unreliable Mrs. Kent was present and able to tions where is perpetrator of the crime pally because see first-hand the circumstances which only petitioner black was was black influence a witness. The trial court sitting at counsel table. in-court petitioner’s for an denied motion At least two circuits have nevertheless Illinois held lineup. Supreme Court surrounding some in-court found conditions right line petitioner had no to an in-court a defend suggestive identifications so finding identifying up, race be “a mere rights process implicated. ant’s due are Clark, Ill.2d People characteristic.” Warf, 387-88, (1972) N.E.2d Cir.1976), pros the Fifth held that a Brown, 76 Wash.2d (quoting State attempts to an identifica ecutor’s influence (1969)). Writing 458 P.2d directing by pointing verbally tion court, Judge Sprecher this stated: coupled when the erroneous witness Although person’s prison more than a admission record race is attribute, although prejudicial require as to identifying so reversal mere not, however, conviction. court did possibility than a mere of misidenti- more prosecutor’s suggestive that the ac in the wit- hold fication exists when a witness during the an identification would alone having make tions ness box is faced with required The Second Cir- perpe- have reversal.4 having identification not seen impact prosecu- combined of the two emphasized that it was the recently 4. The Eleventh Circuit matter, farther, tial this is not an recently gone finding cuit has identification in-court overly suggestive an Ms. Metternich case. was unable to identi- process, though by itself violates due also Bush; testimony fy her finding in the the error harmless case be- one resembled of the robbers. While this Archibald, fore it. States v. See United testimony may process concerns, due raise (2d Acknowledging Brooks, see United States v. any suggestiveness the inherent in-court (D.C.Cir.1971), the impact of the testi- identification where defendant sits at coun- mony likely great. is not to be as table, significant sel found Nor are the surrounding circumstances recognized “the defendant himself Ms. suggestive Metternich’s suggestiveness.” problem there was a as those in or Archibald. There is attorney Id. at 941. The told his Warf defendant misconduct; no prosecutorial evidence of that he seated with “wanted to five or nor is there evidence that the defendant reasonably six other looked black men who physically stood out him, others in the like that he would to ensure not be obviously singled by only suggestive courtroom.5 out educated wit- circum ness.” court denied Id. The trial defend- stance identified is that he request obligation ant’s no finding stage sat at counsel table. This circumstance lineup. The Second Circuit found that alone is not enough establish a violation they “may agree while ... there was no process. more, of due Without uncer obligation stage lineup, ... there was tainty Ms. surrounding Metternich’s testi an obligation ... ensure that the in-court mony, length whether because of of time procedure simply did not to a [amount since commission of the offense or the lack show-up].” Id. that the Given pretrial of a reliable identification or the was the black the courtroom the suggestiveness seating arrange Second Circuit held that: trial, ments at to consider. request should not have been dis- [H]is Fike, 538 F.2d at 756. quickly missed so so absolutely by Finally, Fike, unlike defendants Warf, fairly delay pro- trial court. A short Archibald, object did not Bush to Ms. ceedings was all would testimony during Metternich’s trial. To re rearrange seating appeal, verse on we would have to find that courtroom and to secure the the trial plain court committed error in people some approxi- of the defendant’s admitting Ms. Metternich’s testimony. age mate color. skin While it was 52(b). Fed.R.Cr.P. Given the uncertainty necessary for the court to conduct a surrounding scope of defendant’s due -type lineup, true Wade these relative- process right traditional in-court ly steps minor ensure identification, is no finding there basis for that the identification was not unfair. plain that the trial court committed procedure

The in-court error uti- not, clearly sponte, responding any sua suggestive sugges lized here was so as to impermissible, be tive surrounding however traditional it conditions Ms. Metter may be. nich’s testimony.6 resemblance Id. at 942-43. We note opening also that his state- ment, prosecutors predicted

Those cases reveal no one of the basis for re versing identify defendant’s conviction. As an ini- both tellers would Bush as one of errors, black, robbers, along skimpy" torial with "otherwise evi- While Bush is as were the dence, prompted find a record does that he was not indicate Warf process. Montgomery,

violation of due Code v. black in the as in Archibald. courtroom Cir.1984). (11th 725 F.2d The court also found that a defendant has no due criminal suggestion reject 6. We also defendant's that his process right lineup. pretrial Id. at & object trial counsel's failure amounted n. 4. of counsel. ineffective assistance testified, participants other they weapons. carried When two robbers. Kress, 446 F.2d Ms. Met- United however, colleague questioned his (9th Cir.1971), denied, cert. U.S. only in terms of resemblance ternich 304, 30 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 264. See also likely to form less Miller in a even Ms. 1179, 1185 Marx, 485 F.2d The record an identification. bring forth (10th indication, if the but no further contains originally some basis prosecution merit, objection had no and Bush’s advised and the witnesses prediction, its appellate counsel does not claim that it did. not identi- testifying they before Rather, present argues that the counsel Bush, except that Metternich be- Ms. fy together “elements” instruction resemblance, there there was lieved permitted just quoted to find one less force in a claim that would be even guilty if Bush was they defendant believed suggestive. procedure was in-court merely present while the other man com- III. Instruction robbery. They point mitted armed out that “elements” instruction stated four instructed the as to The court must proved beyond certain acts be a rea- proved elements which must be essential doubt, specific sonable without a assertion the armed of- to establish order proved must be to have commit- instruction charged in Count I. The fense have personally ted acts affirmative- requirement three acts listed ly participated. in- willfully. done It then such acts be objection if has been No at trial on the each element made structed doubt, argued. ground now Indeed the Govern- beyond a defend- proved reasonable an suggested aiding abetting ment in- guilty found and that ant should be ignored struction. Defense trial counsel proved, the should not so suggestion. objection guilty. was no found not There “elements” instruction. to this Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 30 party’s requires objection that a to a instructed, then The court doubtless “distinctly state the matter to instruction testimony as to conflicting because objects grounds he and the of his which had the gun, robber which objection.” See United States Verkui necessary it is not that the Government Cir.1982); len, (7th 652-53 beyond a doubt that the prove Jackson, States v. personally himself used a dan (7th Cir.1978); 1008-09 United States v. weapon committing the rob gerous Gratton, Cir. show that a bery. The Government must 1975). general objection A instruc dangerous weapon used either objection grounds other than tion or an accomplice defendant or appeal satisfy raised on does not those of the commission offense. Verkuilen, Rule 30. See 690 F.2d at 653 objected to the trial counsel Appellant’s insufficient); Jackson, (general objection it ground on that instruction the sole latter (objection 569 F.2d at 1008-10 on other charged indictment unfair because the insufficient). was Accordingly, grounds the is weapon. defendant used the that appellate sue on review is whether the dis challenged trict court’s submission pointed a de- out that The Government “plain instruction error” within constituted aiding be convicted of fendant meaning 52(b). the of Fed.R.Crim.P. Jack though princi- abetting charged even son, 1010; Gratton, F.2d at F.2d Galiffa, 734 pal. United States v. at 306, (7th Cir.1984); whole, Tucker, 202, Reading the instructions as a we partici- jury little likelihood that the find applied This rule has been finding guilt carry misled into based pants in a did robbery bank who presence mere in the manner counsel on weapon, of armed were convicted guilt.” was no about suggests. are satisfied there Id. at 597. We [the defendant’s] Borum, In stark contrast to the in plain error. facts in present the the indisput- evidence case is Af- appealed from is ably clear that the boxes were the stored in firmed. were at bank safe and all times inaccessible Thus, to Bush. the present facts in the COFFEY, concurring. Judge, Circuit wholly inapposite case are to the in facts to majority’s in conclusion I concur the Borum. defendant Bush’s conviction affirm robbery in of 18 U.S.C. violation Moreover, armed Borum, in jars the on which however, § 2113(a),(d). separately, I write police found the fingerprints defendant’s and the sufficiency the of the evidence on in “were stored the second floor closet concerning Bush’s re- private home to which [the defendant] one of the armed robbers. semblance as (Burg no lawful access.” 380 F.2d at 599 er, J., dissenting). Common sense dictates majority the opinion, In section I of the that only opportunity the defendant’s sufficient reasons there properly that jars hidden during handle these jury presented at trial for evidence doubt, illegal entry. find, certainly course of his It beyond a reasonable Indeed, infer, robbery. in participated beyond the armed doubt, at trial expert any finger witness testified on a fingerprints prints placed were found white jars during Bush’s were his bank safe. and blue box stored presence box unlawful in the home. As then testimony further that these revealed Judge dissent, Burger noted in kept in safe at all boxes were the bank majority seems to assume “[t]he to the safe was re times that access prosecution’s case ques must answer all employees. exclusively stricted to bank doubts, which, tions and remove all employee was never an the bank Bush course, is not the law because that would lawfully was he ever authorized nor impossible; proof satisfy need Accordingly, enter the safe. boxes (emphasis original). reasonable doubt.” Id. it inaccessible to Bush and was rea were hypertechnical con analysis Borum conclude, beyond for a sonable flicts the well-settled rule that a doubt, handling oc of the boxes viewing verdict must be sustained “after curred unlawful armed light the evidence most favorable point, than at this analysis Rather end the prosecution, any rational trier of fact majority to the erroneously refers D.C. could have found the essential elements decision Borum Circuit’s beyond the crime a reasonable doubt.” (“Bo (D.C.Cir.1967) Moya, ). rum” — (7th Cir.1983), U.S. —, denied, cert. (em (1984) Borum, 104 S.Ct. 79 L.Ed.2d 709 overturned a divided court phasis private original) (quoting entry conviction for unlawful into a Jackson v. Vir dwelling against ginia, 443 U.S. because the S.Ct. (1979)). of four 61 L.Ed.2d 560 was the Rather than fingerprints decision, empty jars were found refer the Borum which is easi According ly to the distinguishable present ransacked home. from the case court, indicating faulty legal there I reasoning, was “no evidence contains [jars] generally inaccessible” would cast it afloat on the troubled waters defendant, 60’s, forgotten the could of and thus the ever to be in our speculate only legal history, handled as a time when far that the defendant annals of Borum, jars entry. courts during illegal many too of our were concerned expanding rights F.2d at of the criminal 596. The court concluded with inconclusive, attempts a reason- In zealous evidence their so defendant. “[w]ith person end, upset doubt the courts the ever able must a reasonable achieve this have resemblance rights testimony sug- balance between the would delicate be as a against society gestive prejudicial. as those and/or Bush never whole, all good the common known as the district asked court for a “line-up” or- mankind, underlying premise of our Ju- and thus the process der due reasoning in heritage. deo-Christian wholly is inapplicable Archibald to the in- stant case. myself majori- I also distance from ty’s reference v. Archi- Finally, this singularly case is inappropri- (2d Cir.1984) (“Archi- bald, 734 addressing ate for parameters bald”) opinion. II section of the proposed process rights defendant’s due Archibald, the asked in advance during an in-court identification. The wit- away be of trial “that he seated not only positively ness failed to identify table defense other black men be Bush but the defense counsel failed to ob- in the seated courtroom” because he feared ject prosecutor when the posed the resem- his lone at the defense table question. alleged blance Because the error suggestive lead to a in-court identifi- would preserved, not issue before cation. 734 F.2d at 942. The trial court this court is whether the district court com- request ap- refused the plain admitting mitted error in the resem- reversed, ruling peal Second Circuit testimony. majority blance As opinion procedure in-court identification “[t]he acknowledges, “[tjhere no is evidence of suggestive clearly utilized here so misconduct; prosecutorial nor is there evi- impermissible, however traditional it dence that the physi- defendant stood out present be.” Id. at 942-43. cally from others the courtroom. The identification, case there was no in-court suggestive circumstance identified simply prosecutor asked the witness the defendant is that he sat at counsel anyone whether courtroom (Footnote omitted). Accordingly, table.” the armed resembled one of robbers. present the instant case does not facts pointed witness to the defendant Bush and reference to opin- warrant the Archibald stated that resembles him.” re- This “[h]e ion, possible much less a discussion did not constitute semblance process rights due to be afforded a defend- positive identification and the defense coun- during ant an in-court identification. ample opportunity sel to cross-examine inability identify the witness’ Bush. majority quotes

I further note that the process due

the Second Circuit’s broad

holding ig- completely Archibald but the fact that the defendant in that

nores irreparable suggestivity case feared result- BUETHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Scott ing from the in-court identification asked, trial, to before be seated with other approximate age people and skin AIRLINES, INC., BRITT Circuit, According color. the Second Defendant-Appellee. suggestive defendant fears in-court iden- “ No. 84-1116. tification, remedy ‘his is move for line-up order to assure that the identifica- Appeals, United States Court of suspect tion witness will first view the Seventh Circuit. description than in the others like rather Argued Sept. ta- sitting alone at the defense courtroom ” (quoting ble.’ Id. at 942 11, 1984. Decided Dec. Cir.1983)). Brown, (2d absolutely present The record in is case believed, in of any

void trial, anytime

advance of trial or

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. William Bush, A/K/A William Turner

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Mar 18, 1985

Citation: 749 F.2d 1227

Docket Number: 83-2147

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.