U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Thomas Williams v. United States of America, Lindsey McDaniel v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 22, 1958 · Fahy, Washington, Dan-Aher

255 F.2d 896; 103 U.S. App. D.C. 144; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4271 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gaseh, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Frederick G. Smithson, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

James H. Harris v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Frederick Elmo Thompson, Jr. v. United States (9th Cir. 1967)
State v. Warner (Me. 1967)
Scott v. United States (D.C. 1967)
Thomas Williams v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
People v. Christman (New York County Courts 1970)
The People v. Wright (Ill. 1968)
State v. Carpenter (Neb. 1967)
Alire v. People (Colo. 1965)
Albert Douglas Davis v. United States (9th Cir. 1964)

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.

The appellants, together with one Jackie J. Floyd, were indicted for common law murder, murder in perpetration of a felony, and robbery. Floyd has not been tried because of his mental condition. Appellants were tried only on the counts for murder in the perpetration of a felony, and for robbery, the count charging premeditated murder having been dismissed as to them. Two trials by jury resulted in mistrials, the first because the jury was unable to agree on a verdict and the second because a juror was unable to complete the deliberations. A third trial followed before a district judge alone, trial by jury having been duly waived. The judge acquitted appellants of the murder charge and convicted them of robbery, as aiders and abettors rather than as principals. It is from the resulting judgments that they appeal. 1

Appellants question the admissibility of certain evidence, the sufficiency of *897 the evidence, and the validity of the robbery conviction on the ground of its alleged inconsistency with their acquittal of the charge of murder in the perpetration of the robbery. Upon consideration of these and all other questions raised we find no basis for reversal and the judgments are

Affirmed.

. Appellants were tried together. They took separate appeals from the separate judgments, but the two eases were here consolidated for briefing and argument.

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