Samuel D. Wrightson, Jr. v. United States, 236 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Samuel D. Wrightson, Jr. v. United States, 236 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Miller v. United States (scotus, 1958-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1958 · confidence medium
C. 377, 378, 236 F. 2d 672, 673 (C.
examined Cited "see" Sherman Brandon v. United States (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, Draper v. United States, 1959, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 , citing with approval, 358 U.S. at page 312, note 4 , 79 S.Ct. at page 332 , our Wrightson v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 377 , 236 F.2d 072 ; Ellis v. United States, 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 86 , 264 F.2d 372 ; Christensen v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 35 , 259 F.2d 192 . .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Draper v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1959 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Wrightson v. United States, 236 F. 2d 672 (C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Samuel D. WRIGHTSON, Jr., Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
13131.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 12, 1956.
236 F.2d 672
Mr. Robert H. Symonds, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Saul G. Lichten-berg, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., were oh the brief, for appellee. Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, and Mr. Carl A. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.
Prettyman, Miller, Fahy.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Wrightson appeals his conviction for armed robbery. This is the second-time the case has been here. The first time' we directed a new trial, [1] because the[*673] Government failed to present evidence as to probable cause for the arrest without a warrant and for the ensuing search and seizure, although appellant challenged the legality of the arrest and the search. The arrest was made at Wright-son’s apartment at about five-thirty in the morning some twelve days after the robbery which was the basis of the indictment. Upon the second trial Wright-son was again convicted. At this trial a police officer testified that he had been investigating the robbery for some days and that at two-thirty on the morning of the arrest an informer whom he knew, and in whom he had confidence, gave him the name and address of one of the alleged robbers (Wrightson) and told him that Wrightson was preparing to leave town. This was probable cause to make the arrest and was sufficient justification for making it without waiting until the time when a warrant could be procured.

We find no other error affecting substantial rights of the appellant.

Affirmed.

1

. Wrightson v. United States, 1955, 95 U.S. App.D.C. 390, 222, F.2d 556.