TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert Schoenbrun v. United States

Robert SCHOENBRUN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Schoenbrun v. United States, 403 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 3, 1968
Docket
No. 25308
Judges
Godbold, Per Curiam, Simpson, Wisdom
Citations
403 F.2d 561968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5376

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Robert Schoenbrun, defendant-appellant, was convicted of forging the payee’s signature on a Social Security check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 . At the trial the United States introduced a handwriting sample government agents obtained from Schoenbrun without giving him the full Miranda warning. At the time, he was confronted with his alleged accomplice in an atmosphere charged with hostility. The Government’s handwriting expert testified that the endorsement on the check was written by the same person whose handwriting (the exemplar) was submitted to him as being Schoenbrun’s. The defendant’s expert testified that he could not positively identify the endorsement as Schoenbrun’s. There is much to be said for the appellant’s contention that in the circumstances of this case he was entitled to the Miranda warnings and to the advice of counsel at what to him was a critical stage in the proceeding — the point at which it appeared necessary for him to give a sample of his handwriting. However, Gilbert v. State of California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 266 , 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1182 , compels us to hold that a “handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying characteristic outside [the protection of the Fifth Amendment] and * * * the taking of the exemplars [is], not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal proceedings entitling petitioner to the assistance of counsel”.

There is no merit to the appellant’s contention that the evidence does not support the verdict of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1968: 21969: 21971: 11972: 31982: 11986: 119682026peak 1972 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Olson v. State484 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
  2. United States v. Kirksey McCord Nix, Jr.465 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1972)
  3. Courson v. State414 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  4. State v. MacIas481 So. 2d 979 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  5. United States v. Spencer O. Walker and Ruben Ivery453 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1972)
  6. United States v. James Albert Driver462 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1972)

Most recent

  1. State v. MacIas481 So. 2d 979 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  2. Courson v. State414 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  3. United States v. Kirksey McCord Nix, Jr.465 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1972)
  4. United States v. James Albert Driver462 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1972)
  5. United States v. Spencer O. Walker and Ruben Ivery453 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1972)
  6. United States v. Irwin322 F. Supp. 701 (W.D. Pa. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) 3,100

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list