U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1957

Porter L. Lawson v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 3, 1957 · Miller, Bazelon, Fahy

248 F.2d 654; 101 U.S. App. D.C. 332; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3849 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. T. Emmett McKenzie, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Fred L. McIntyre, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Alexander L. Stevas, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Richard E. Leigh v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
Charles M. Jones v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962)
David Blackney v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Anthony M. Accardo v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1957)
United States v. Frank Lewis (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Bunter v. United States (D.C. 1968)
State v. Costello (Mo. 1967)
Freddie L. Perry v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
George Williams, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962)
United States v. Arthur William Ladson (2d Cir. 1961)
Jack Ruffin v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Albert E. Blackshear v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Aaron Perry v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
James S. Gilliam v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Robert Starr, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
United States v. Bailey (District Court, District of Columbia 2016)
Pennsylvania v. Local Union No. 542, International Union of Operating Engineers (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972)
James N. Washington v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)

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

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from a conviction of housebreaking, D.C.Code, § 22-1801 (1951), appellant urges error in the admission of certain statements made to police officials after his arrest in the early morning hours and before he was taken before a committing magistrate. He relies upon Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479. But no trial objection was made to the evidence, so that we are not required to decide the question of its admissibility, and the evidence is of a character and appears in a context 1 which does not lead us to do so in our discretion. 2

It is also contended that the court erred in refusing a requested instruction that it was not the duty of defendant to make any defense. It is said the instruction should have been given because of remarks of the prosecutor to the jury, in summation, about defendant’s failure to call certain witnesses. The remarks were permissible 3 and did not require that the suggested instruction be given. The jury were fully advised by the court that the burden of proof rested upon the Government to prove guilt to their satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, that this burden extended to each and all essential elements of the offense charged, and that the burden rested upon the Government from the beginning to the end of the case.

Affirmed.

. It might well be that objection was not made because the whole of what was said was thought to be helpful to the defendant.

. Crawford v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 198 F.2d 976; McQuaid v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 198 F.2d 987; Mumforde v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 107, 130 F.2d 411; Bradley v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. -, 249 F.2d 922; cf. Payton v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 4, 222 F.2d 794, 797.

. Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 234 F.2d 385, 389; Rice v. United States, 2 Cir., 35 F.2d 689, 694-695.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.