Frederick G. Diehl v. United States, 265 F.2d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Frederick G. Diehl v. United States, 265 F.2d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frederick G. DIEHL, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
14690.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jan 15, 1959.
265 F.2d 344
Mr. William R. Leekemby, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), with whom Mr. Edgar A. Wren, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Charles W. Halleck, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee.
Prettyman, Washington, Bastían.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the crime of housebreaking. The complaining witness was a military attache of a foreign embassy, and another witness was a domestic servant in his household. Appellant says that they were not competent witnesses, because they were not liable to punishment for perjury under their diplomatic immunity. We think the point is not well taken. These witnesses took the oath, and moreover the diplomatic immunity from punishment for perjury can be waived by superior diplomatic officials. [1]

Affirmed.

1

. 6 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1831, 1832 (3d ed. 1940); 4 Hackworth, International Law 547 (1942); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1784, 1 Dall. 111, 1 U.S. 111, 1 L.Ed. 59.