TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James David Sartain

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James David SARTAIN, Appellant

United States v. Sartain, 422 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 2, 1970
Docket
No. 23323
Judges
Hufstedler, Wright, Plummer
Citations
422 F.2d 3871970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10930

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James David Sartain (hereinafter Sartain), was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California following a trial by jury for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 , subsecs, (a), (d). A timely appeal was taken to this court which has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294(4).

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Sartain’s motion to strike the testimony of identification witnesses under the authority of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).

*388 Two Government witnesses were shown pictures of Sartain prior to the time of trial but subsequent to the time counsel had been appointed. Both witnesses made positive in-court identification. Each was cross-examined and neither wavered in his identification. There was no evidence that ,the showing of the photographs had any causal connection with the witnesses’ ability to identify Sartain at the trial.

The cross-examination by Sartain’s counsel merely established the fact that the witnesses had seen photographs of Sartain prior to trial. Counsel did not try to determine the manner in which the. photographs were shown or if their showing had any relation to ,the in-court testimony. From the information which was elicited, the identification procedure was not shown to be so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

The .trial court properly denied Sartain’s motion to strike. United States v. Stinson, 422 F.2d 356 (9 Cir., Dec. 29, 1969);

United States v. Conway, 415 F.2d 158 (3d Cir. 1969).

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11974: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Charles J. Ash, Jr.461 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  2. United States v. Thomas Albert Trejo501 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1974)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Thomas Albert Trejo501 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1974)
  2. United States v. Charles J. Ash, Jr.461 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) 7,026
United States v. Conway, 415 F.2d 158 (3d Cir. 1969) 64
United States v. Stinson, 422 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1970) 1

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