Earl Lonnie Thomas v. United States, 268 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Earl Lonnie Thomas v. United States, 268 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
How cited ↗
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Earl Lonnie THOMAS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
14913_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 28, 1959.
Published opinion
268 F.2d 581
1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782
Mr. Frederick A. Babson, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant., Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, 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 appel-lee.
Miller, Washington, Danaher.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Mr. Frederick A. Babson, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, 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.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas was convicted of breaking open a locked automobile and stealing certain property therefrom. Proof for the Government showed his fingerprint was on the door handle of the car. On appeal he says the print on the handle was not sufficiently shown to be his, and that the prints of his fingers with which it was compared were illegally taken from him. But no motion was made for the suppression of the prints, no objection was taken to their admission, and no foundation was laid for such motion or objection.

We find no error.

Affirmed.

Concurrence

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge

(concurring).

The circumstances of this case, especially the failure to note an objection at trial, amply distinguish it from Bynum v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465, on which appellant relies.