From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lancaster v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 15, 1961
293 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1961)

Opinion

No. 16229.

Argued May 12, 1961.

Decided June 15, 1961.

Mr. Maurice R. Weeks, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. David C. Acheson, now U.S. Atty., and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.


Appellant was convicted of violating the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and possessing obscene pictures with intent to exhibit them. D.C. Code (1951) § 22-2001. When an alleged obscene film was shown in court, the public except newspaper reporters were excluded. There was other evidence. Appellant's right to a public trial was not denied. Gillars v. United States, 87 U.S.App. D.C. 16, 31, 182 F.2d 962, 977; Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aguino v. United States, 9 Cir., 192 F.2d 338, 365, certiorari denied, 343 U.S. 935, 72 S.Ct. 772, 96 L.Ed. 1343, rehearing denied, 345 U.S. 931, 72 S.Ct. 1053, 96 L.Ed. 1358.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Lancaster v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 15, 1961
293 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Case details for

Lancaster v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Bernard W. LANCASTER, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1961

Citations

293 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
110 U.S. App. D.C. 331

Citing Cases

United States ex rel. Orlando v. Fay

See Davis v. United States, 247 F. 394, 395 (8 Cir. 1917). Thus, the public trial requirement is subject to…

Schavey v. Roylston

20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 79; 21 C.J.S. Courts § 88. Numerous cases recognize the trial court's discretionary…