United States v. Robert L. Samuel

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert L. SAMUEL, Appellant

United States v. Samuel, 433 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: November 6, 1970
Docket: No. 13650
Judges: Sobeloff, Winter, Butzner
Citations: 433 F.2d 6631970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6571

Cited by 22 3 descriptions by later courts Original from court

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

By order of this Court entered September 15, 1970, 431 F.2d 610 , we requested the district judge to supplement the record by filing a statement of all the reasons and facts and matters from which he concluded to require defendant to be tried before a jury wearing handcuffs. We reserved the question of whether defendant’s conviction should be reversed because of an abuse of discretion on the part of the district judge in this regard. The statement has been filed, a copy was served on counsel and counsel has filed a responsive memorandum.

The statement shows that the district judge had reason to believe that defendant and a codefendant might attempt bodily harm to the government informer when his identity was disclosed at trial. After the trial began, there was also reason to suspect that if such an attempt were made, assistance might be forthcoming from persons who were purportedly solely spectators in the courtroom.

While some of the bases for the district judge’s beliefs do not have the same degree of specificity that we would require had the district judge recorded his information contemporaneously with the event, the fact is that the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which it was perpetrated made it inevitable that the jury knew that defendant had previously been convicted of crime and was an inmate in a penal institution. Moreover, the jury was instructed that these facts could not be considered in determining defendant’s guilt or innocence of the pending charge.

We cannot conclude that the district judge abused his discretion and the judgment of conviction is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(trial court had reason to believe defendant and a codefendant might attempt bodily harm to a government witness at trial)

State v. Hartzog, 635 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1981)
(defendant and codefendant posed threat to a government informer who was to testify at trial)

State v. Finch, 975 P.2d 967 (Wash. 1999)
(no abuse of discretion in shackling)

United States v. Theriault, 526 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1976)

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Commonwealth v. Brown305 N.E.2d 830 (Mass. 1973)
United States v. Harry William Theriault531 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1976)
State v. Brewster261 S.E.2d 77 (W. Va. 1979)
Bowers v. State507 A.2d 1072 (Md. 1986)
Commonwealth v. DeVasto387 N.E.2d 1169 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
State v. Hartzog635 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1981)

Most recent

Cooley v. State849 A.2d 1026 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004)
State v. Finch975 P.2d 967 (Wash. 1999)
Whittlesey v. State665 A.2d 223 (Md. 1995)
State v. Wright346 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
Bowers v. State507 A.2d 1072 (Md. 1986)
United States v. Anthony Grandison, United States of America v780 F.2d 425 (4th Cir. 1985)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1970)	122

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list