Ralph Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Ralph Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) · Strongest negative: Claude Jason Lewis v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, 352 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1965)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 660 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).published
    Bruno v. Herald [Herold], 397 U.S. 957 , 90 S.Ct. 947 , 25 L.Ed.2d 141 (1969) [ (1970)]; Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659, 660 (9th Cir.) (construing sixth amendment), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 842 , 80 S.Ct. 94 , 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); Peo…
  • State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153 (Utah 1989).published
    Bruno v. Herald, 397 U.S. 957 , 90 S.Ct. 947 , 25 L.Ed.2d 141 (1969); Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659, 660 (9th Cir.) (construing sixth amendment), *156 ce rt. denied, 361 U.S. 842 , 80 S.Ct. 94 , 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); People v. Cash,…
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ralph GEISE, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
16048.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 16, 1959.
Published opinion
265 F.2d 659
1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4043
Arthur D. Talbot, Anchorage, Alaska, Edgar Paul Boyko, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., William T. Plummer, U. S. Atty., George F. Boney, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee.
Pope, Mathews, Healy.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The petition for a rehearing is denied. The gist of the matter here is that the rule is well settled that under the circumstances of this case some persons may properly be excluded from the court room. Cf. People v. Jelke, 308 N. Y. 56, 123 N.E.2d 769, 772, 48 A.L.R.2d 1425. That is our holding here. We also hold that appellant cannot complain of the failure of the court to revoke its exclusion order after the minor witness had testified, since appellant made no request therefor. That is particularly true in this case which is not an appeal from the conviction, but an attempted collateral attack on the judgment.

Petitioner does not question the possibility of appellant’s waiving his rights to such revocation of the order. Cf. Gibson v. United States, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 19, 22. What he says is that “this overlooks the fact that the accused cannot waive the public’s right to a public trial.” The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is a right of the accused, and of the accused only. Cf. United Press Ass’ns v. Valente, 308 N.Y. 71, 123 N.E. 2d 777, 781; United States v. Sorren-tino, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 721, 723.