From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackshear v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 20, 1958
252 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Opinion

No. 14139.

Argued January 22, 1958.

Decided February 20, 1958. Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied March 18, 1958.

Mr. Dayton M. Harrington, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. James D. Graham, Jr., Washington, D.C. (both appointed by this Court) was on the brief for appellant.

Mr. Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Messrs. Arthur J. McLaughlin, and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.


Blackshear was convicted of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal he argues that his arrest was illegal and that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mallory case precluded the admission of certain statements which he made.

Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479.

Since he did not raise the point below, and since the circumstances do not call for an application of Rule 52(b), 18 U.S.C.A., we do not consider the alleged error. Lawson v. United States, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 248 F.2d 654. The judgment of the District Court is therefore

The statements made were in the nature of an alibi. Conviction evidently rested on other evidence, chiefly that of the victim.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Blackshear v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 20, 1958
252 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Case details for

Blackshear v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Albert E. BLACKSHEAR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 20, 1958

Citations

252 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
102 U.S. App. D.C. 289

Citing Cases

United States v. Lewis

" The rationale for these requirements includes importantly the need for a record, developed by adversary…

Williams v. United States

The direct testimony of the officers alone was sufficient entirely apart from any statements made by the…