From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 11, 1956
237 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1956)

Summary

In Williams v. United States, 1956, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789, we were dealing with seized property which was indisputably in the defendant's possession after what was held to be an illegal arrest; that case holds simply that the fruit of an illegal arrest is inadmissible, as we also held in Bynum v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465.

Summary of this case from Willis v. United States

Opinion

No. 13369.

Argued September 14, 1956.

Decided October 11, 1956. Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied November 27, 1956.

Mr. Yale Kamisar, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.


The arrest of appellant was illegal because without a warrant, without probable cause, and without other validating circumstances. The government does not seriously contend otherwise. A cigarette package containing capsules which in turn contained contraband narcotics was procured by the officers, who had appellant in custody, when he dropped the package in a corridor of the precinct station shortly after his arrest and when it seemed clear he was to be searched. The contraband capsules were admitted in evidence. Since they were procured as a result of the illegal arrest the motion for their suppression made at the trial should have been granted. In a pre-trial motion to suppress appellant had disclaimed ownership of the capsules. But when his objection to their admission was renewed and acted upon at the trial itself the unchallenged testimony of the prosecution showed that the capsules were in appellant's possession until he dropped them, thus giving him standing to object.

Appellant was convicted on each of two counts of an indictment for violating provisions of the laws governing narcotics, viz., 26 U.S.C.A. § 2553(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 11, 1956
237 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1956)

In Williams v. United States, 1956, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789, we were dealing with seized property which was indisputably in the defendant's possession after what was held to be an illegal arrest; that case holds simply that the fruit of an illegal arrest is inadmissible, as we also held in Bynum v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465.

Summary of this case from Willis v. United States

In Williams v. United States, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789, petition for rehearing in banc denied, where the defendant had actually denied ownership of the contraband rather than merely failing to claim ownership, the court reached the same conclusion that Judge Fahy alone had reached in Wyche.

Summary of this case from Christensen v. United States

In Williams v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789 (1956), it was held that where a prisoner, arrested without a warrant and without probable cause, tossed a package of narcotic capsules on the floor of a precinct station, such package was improperly received in evidence.

Summary of this case from Smith v. United States
Case details for

Williams v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Warren F. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

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

Date published: Oct 11, 1956

Citations

237 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
99 U.S. App. D.C. 161

Citing Cases

Christensen v. United States

The jury resolved both these issues adversely to appellant, and its finding is conclusive here. Cf. Williams…

United States v. Allen

See Rule 51, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, discussed in 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice Procedure § 842…