United States v. Vernon Thompson
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Richard McDaniel (5th Cir. 1972)
- Archie Nathaniel Biggers v. William S. Neil, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Nashville, Tennessee (6th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Benjamin Jerome Hicks, United States of America v. Frankie Randall (4th Cir. 1984)
- North Carolina v. Butler (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
- State v. Patterson (N.C. 1975)
- Dotson v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)
- United States v. Deontrayvia Adams (4th Cir. 2012)
- United States v. Melendez Santiago (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2007)
- State v. Evans (La. Ct. App. 1991)
- Moore v. Ballone (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1980)
- United States v. Carr (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1978)
- United States v. Warwick Mason Wyatt (4th Cir. 1977)
- Johnny James Blackmon v. Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina (4th Cir. 1976)
- Allen v. State (Nev. 1975)
- William D. Hill v. W. J. Whealon, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (6th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Potter (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1973)
- United States v. Samuel Lee Johnson and James Earl Young, Sr. (5th Cir. 1972)
- Mosley v. Slayton (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1972)
- United States v. Rubie C. Jenkins (7th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Howard C. Phelps (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Irvine Sisk Stevens (6th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Richard Clinton Van Dusen (1st Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Leo Tom Hopkins (5th Cir. 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Vernon Thompson appeals from his conviction on two counts of an indictment charging the interstate transportation of forged securities. 18 U.S.C. § 2314. We affirm.
Thompson complains that an oral confession given to agents of the F.B.I. was admitted even though he had refused to sign a written waiver of his rights. The evidence discloses that Thompson, an intelligent man, was informed of his rights in the manner required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He declined to sign a written waiver, but he stated that he understood his rights. Thereafter he freely and voluntarily answered questions. He was not subjected to prolonged interrogation or in any way coerced. In view of Thompson’s intelligence, his affirmative statement that he understood the explanation of his rights, and the voluntariness of his confession, we hold that his refusal to sign a written waiver did not render the confession inadmissible. United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1006, 88 S.Ct. 1250, 20 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968).
Thompson also complains that his identification by a witness was tainted because the witness saw him in custody in the marshal’s office. 1 The witness, however, had given the police a description of Thompson and selected his picture from among a number of others before he was arrested. These circumstances show that the confrontation in the marshal’s office was not so “conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [Thompson] was denied due process of law.” Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Moreover, as an indication that the error, if any, was harmless, the district judge who was trying the case without a jury stated that even without the identification by this witness, the evidence was sufficient to convince him of Thompson’s guilt. Cf. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
We have considered Thompson’s other assignments of error and find no merit in them.
Affirmed.
. This incident took place before the decision in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), concerning lineups. Wade is not retroactive. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.