UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES PATRICK PRESSLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the in-court identification testimony was admissible because the prior lineup, conducted with counsel present, did not violate due process.
Appellant was convicted of armed bank robbery. He challenged the admissibility of witness testimony regarding a prior lineup and an in-court identific…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tainted Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.A., § 2113(d), armed robbery of a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The trial was to a jury on a plea of not guilty.
The error assigned as the alleged inadmissibility of testimony by several witnesses regarding a prior line-up and of the in-court identification testimony of a bank employee. The employee identified appellant as‘being the robber of the bank. The robbery took place some two years before the trial and before an out-of-court line-up where the same bank employee identified appellant.
It is urged that the in-court identification was tainted by the line-up and that the line-up was conducted in an illegal manner. Appellant was represented by counsel at the line-up. See United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 237, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, on the right to counsel at a line-up. The line-up, considered in the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, did not violate due process. Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Foster v. California, 1969, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402.
The evidence in question was admitted after a full hearing on a motion to suppress. The ruling that it was admissible, perforce, rested on a determination that appellant’s right to counsel was not violated and that the line-up did not violate due process concepts.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)
- Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1969)