U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

Curtis Lyons v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 3, 1960 · Reed, Miller, Danaher

284 F.2d 237; 109 U.S. App. D.C. 103 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Stanley Robert Jacobs, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant., Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Norman Williams (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Leroy Herbert Ray v. United States (9th Cir. 1969)
Barney Locklear v. United States (5th Cir. 1968)

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.

After appellant’s conviction of two counts,of violation of the narcotics laws, he here presents as the sole issue that the trial judge erred when he inadvertently overlooked appellant’s request that no reference be made to his failure to testify. The jury was, in part, instructed:

“In this case, for example, the defendant did not testify. He doesn’t ■ have to. He has a' right not to testify, and you are not entitled to draw any inference whatever from his failure to do so, because it is up to the Government to prove him guilty ; it isn’t up to him to prove his innocence.”

Appellant does not attack the correctness of the instruction as given, but argues he had,- and was denied, an indefeasible right to demand that it not be given. He relies “heavily” upon Bruno v. United States, 1939, 308 U.S. 287, 60 S.Ct. 198, 84 L.Ed. 257. There the Supreme Court, for the reasons outlined, held that the trial judge erred in refusing to give such an instruction. In the circumstances presented here, we find no basis for a conclusion that the appellant was prejudiced.

Affirmed.

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