From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Geise v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 16, 1959
265 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1959)

Summary

construing sixth amendment

Summary of this case from State v. Butterfield

Opinion

No. 16048.

April 16, 1959.

Arthur D. Talbot, Anchorage, Alaska, Edgar Paul Boyko, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

William T. Plummer, U.S. Atty., George F. Boney, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee.

Before POPE, MATHEWS and HEALY, Circuit Judges.


The petition for a rehearing is denied. The gist of the matter here is that the rule is well settled that under the circumstances of this case some persons may properly be excluded from the court room. Cf. People v. Jelke, 308 N.Y. 56, 123 N.E.2d 769, 772, 48 A.L.R.2d 1425. That is our holding here. We also hold that appellant cannot complain of the failure of the court to revoke its exclusion order after the minor witness had testified, since appellant made no request therefor. That is particularly true in this case which is not an appeal from the conviction, but an attempted collateral attack on the judgment.

Petitioner does not question the possibility of appellant's waiving his rights to such revocation of the order. Cf. Gibson v. United States, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 19, 22. What he says is that "this overlooks the fact that the accused cannot waive the public's right to a public trial." The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is a right of the accused, and of the accused only. Cf. United Press Ass'ns v. Valente, 308 N.Y. 71, 123 N.E.2d 777, 781; United States v. Sorrentino, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 721, 723.


Summaries of

Geise v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 16, 1959
265 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1959)

construing sixth amendment

Summary of this case from State v. Butterfield

construing sixth amendment

Summary of this case from Alvarez v. State
Case details for

Geise v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Ralph GEISE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 16, 1959

Citations

265 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1959)

Citing Cases

Weissman v. United States

Martin said that he was a lay-out designer and did clerical work for a New York firm but had not been…

United States v. Eisner

UnitedStates ex rel. Bruno v. Herold, 408 F.2d 125 (C.A.2 1969); United States ex rel. Orlando v. Fay, 350…