Theodore Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253 (10th Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Theodore Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253 (10th Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Miller (wisctapp, 2011-02-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Miller
Wis. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
A criminal defendant generally should not be restrained during trial, as freedom is an "important component of a fair and impartial trial." Sparkman v. State, 27 Wis. 2d 92, 96-97 , 133 N.W.2d 776 (1965) (quoting Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Finch
Wash. · 1999 · confidence medium
Thus, this court and courts of other jurisdictions have universally held that restraints should "be used only when necessary to prevent injury to those in the courtroom, to prevent disorderly conduct at trial, or to prevent an escape." [12] Hartzog, 96 Wash.2d *1000 at 398, 635 P.2d 694 ; see also Ollison, 68 Wash.2d at 69 , 411 P.2d 419 ; Sawyer, 60 Wash.2d at 86 , 371 P.2d 932 ; State v. Early, 70 Wash.App. 452, 462 , 853 P.2d 964 (1993); Hardin v. Estelle, 365 F.Supp. 39, 45 (W.D.Tex.), aff'd, 484 F.2d 944 (5th Cir.1973); Hernandez, 443 F.2d at 636 ; Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Finch
Wash. · 1999 · confidence medium
Tex), aff'd, 484 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1973); Hernandez, 443 F.2d at 636 ; Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960); Boose, 66 Ill. 2d at 265 ; Kennedy, 487 F.2d at 105 ; Woodwards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978, 982 (6th Cir. 1970); Brown, 364 Mass. at 475 ; Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 748 (9th Cir. 1995); Hamilton v. Vasquez, 17 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1401-02 (9th Cir. 1993); Duran, 16 Cal. 3d at 290 ; United States v. Theriault, 531 F.2d 281, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1976); Tolley, 226 S.E.2d at 367 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Williams
unknown court · 1986 · confidence medium
E.g., Allen v. Montgomery, 728 F.2d 1409, 1414 (11th Cir.1984) (“ ‘a brief and fortuitous encounter of the defendant in handcuffs is not prejudicial and requires an affirmative showing of prejudice by the defendant’ ”) (quoting inter alia Wright v. Texas, 533 F.2d 185, 187 (5th Cir.1976)); United States v. Carr, 647 F.2d 867, 868 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 855 , 102 S.Ct. 303 , 70 L.Ed.2d 149 (1981); United States v. Robinson, 645 F.2d 616, 617 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 875 , 102 S.Ct. 351 , 70 L.Ed.2d 182 (1981); United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 549-50 (5th Ci…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edward Udziela
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See United States v. DeLeo, 422 F.2d 487, 496-97 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1037 , 90 S.Ct. 1355 , 25 L.Ed.2d 648 (1970); Coppedge v. United States, 311 F.2d 128, 131-32 (D.C.Cir.) (Burger, J.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 369 U.S. 438 , 82 S.Ct. 917 , 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 946 , 83 S.Ct. 1541 , 10 L.Ed.2d 701 (1963); Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baugh
Mont. · 1977 · confidence medium
Sawyer relied upon Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960) where, as here, the defendant was brought into trial handcuffed, without order of the court, and the handcuffs were then removed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Stanley Allen Diamond, United States of America v. Carlos Martinez
4th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Wright v. State of Texas, 533 F.2d 185, 187 (5 Cir. 1976); United States v. Leach, 429 F.2d 956, 962-63 (8 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 986 , 91 S.Ct. 1675 , 29 L.Ed.2d 151 (1971); Gregory v. United States, 365 F.2d 203, 205 (8 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1029 , 87 S.Ct. 759 , 17 L.Ed.2d 676 (1967); Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10 Cir. 1960).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. Texas
E.D. Tex. · 1975 · confidence medium
See also United States v. Esquer, 459 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1972); Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Cruz
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1973 · confidence medium
In Way v. United States, 285 F. 2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960); the court held that under ordinary circumstances a defendant’s freedom from handcuffs, shackles *243 or manacles is an important component of a fair and impartial trial, and that restraints should not he employed except to prevent him from escaping or injuring others, and to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hardin v. Estelle
W.D. Tex. · 1973 · confidence medium
“In other words such procedure should not be permitted except to prevent the escape of the accused, to prevent him from injuring others and to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial.” Way v. United States, 285 F.2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maurice Pierre Roustio
7th Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 253, 254 (1960).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Ferguson
Mass. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Way v. United States, 285 F. 2d 253, 254 (10th Cir. 1960); Hardin v. United States, 324 F. 2d 553, 554 (5th Cir. 1963); Glass v. United States, 351F. 2d 678, 681 (10th Cir. 1965); Gregory v. United States, 365 F. 2d 203, 205 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. den. 385 U. S. 1029 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" Hubert Vernon Hardin v. United States
5th Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 253 ; Cwach v. United States, 8 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 520 ; McDonald v. United States, 8 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 128, 136 ; and Blaine v. United States, 1949, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 64 , 136 F.2d 284 .
Theodore WAY, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
6562.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Dec 27, 1960.
285 F.2d 253
William E. Shade, Denver, Colo., for appellant., Charles M. Stoddard, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the District of Colorado, Denver,, Colo. (Donald G. Brotzman, U. S. Atty., for the District of Colorado, Denver,, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Bratton, Pickett, Breitenstein.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of conspiring with others to unlawfully and burglariously break and enter a named bank, the deposits of which were insured by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for the purpose of stealing money of the bank in excess of $100; for the purpose of carrying away money of the bank in excess of $100; and for the purpose of receiving, possessing, concealing, storing, bartering, selling, and disposing of money of the bank in excess of $100, knowing it to have been stolen. He was sentenced to imprisonment, and the cause came here on appeal.

The judgment is challenged on the ground that perjured evidence was adduced before the grand jury which re[*254] turned the indictment. Two persons named in the indictment as co-conspirators but not named as defendants testified at the trial. Both testified that they were witnesses before the grand jury. One testified that he gave perjured testimony before the grand jury. The other did not testify that his testimony before the grand jury was untrue. It may be that an indictment is not open to challenge upon the ground that perjured testimony was adduced before the grand jury. And it may be that if an indictment is open to challenge on that ground, it must be raised by motion, plea in .abatement, or otherwise, in advance of trial. But it is unnecessary to explore those questions. It is enough to say that .since it affirmatively appears that the grand jury had before it other evidence on which it may have acted in returning the indictment without giving any weight or credence to the perjured evidence, the indictment is not open to challenge on the ground that perjured testimony was given before the grand jury. Anderson v. United States, 8 Cir., 273 F. 20, certiorari denied, 257 U.S. 647, 42 S.Ct. 56, 66 L.Ed. 415; Laska v. United States, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 672, certiorari denied, 298 U.S. 689, 56 S.Ct. 957, 80 L.Ed. 1407.

Error is predicated upon the Action of the court in denying a motion to dismiss the jury panel for the reason that appellant was brought into court handcuffed. It is fairly apparent from the record that without any order from the court, appellant was at one juncture brought into court handcuffed. But it is further fairly apparent from the record that the handcuffs were removed promptly after he entered the court room. It is the general rule that under ordinary circumstances freedom from handcuffs, .shackles, or manacles of a defendant during the trial of a criminal case is an important component of a fair and impartial trial. In other words, such procedure should not be permitted except to prevent the escape of the accused, to prevent him from injuring others, and to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial. Odell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 300, certiorari denied, 342 U.S. 873, 72 S.Ct. 116, 96 L.Ed. 656. But there is no indication that the occurrence was prejudicial. And in the absence of an indication of prejudicial consequences, such an occurrence does not warrant the granting of a new trial. Blaine, v. United States, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 136 F.2d 284.

The judgment is challenged on the further ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Evidence was adduced which tended to show that sometime prior to the conspiracy appellant had rendered janitorial service for the bank; that he was familiar with the building and the location of the furnishings and equipment therein; that he discussed with others the matter of burglarizing and robbing the bank; that he drew a diagram of the building; that he explained how the building could be entered through the roof at a certain place; that he told others the best time to commit the offense would be over the weekend; that he went with others to the bank to burglarize it but they were prevented from doing so by the arrival of a janitor service vehicle; and that the burglary and robbery occurred later. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

There was no evidence tending to show that appellant was present at the burglary and robbery or participated in it. But the evidence tended to show that he took part in forming the conspiracy; that he knew of its existence; and that with such knowledge, he and others did acts or things in furtherance of it. That was sufficient to warrant his conviction upon the charge of conspiring to commit the robbery and burglary. Duke v. United States, 5 Cir., 233 F.2d 897.

Other contentions are urged for reversal of the judgment, but they are without substance and do not merit discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.