0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views2 pages

United States v. Orlando Maurice Dorantes Appeal of Walter Hudgins, In, 471 F.2d 298, 3rd Cir. (1972)

The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the appeals of Walter Hudgins and Marvin Corey Edwards, who were convicted of bank robbery and aiding and abetting bank robbery, respectively. The court rejected Edwards' argument that in-court eyewitness identifications should have been excluded because the witnesses saw him before testifying and there was no pre-trial lineup. The court also found no error in the district court's hearing on the admissibility of the identifications. Additionally, the court rejected Hudgins' argument that his codefendant's testimony was not credible, as well as Hudgins' argument regarding Edwards disappearing after the trial began
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views2 pages

United States v. Orlando Maurice Dorantes Appeal of Walter Hudgins, In, 471 F.2d 298, 3rd Cir. (1972)

The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the appeals of Walter Hudgins and Marvin Corey Edwards, who were convicted of bank robbery and aiding and abetting bank robbery, respectively. The court rejected Edwards' argument that in-court eyewitness identifications should have been excluded because the witnesses saw him before testifying and there was no pre-trial lineup. The court also found no error in the district court's hearing on the admissibility of the identifications. Additionally, the court rejected Hudgins' argument that his codefendant's testimony was not credible, as well as Hudgins' argument regarding Edwards disappearing after the trial began
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

471 F.

2d 298

UNITED STATES of America


v.
Orlando Maurice DORANTES et al. Appeal of Walter
HUDGINS, in
No. 72-1267.
Appeal of Marvin Corey EDWARDS,
in No. 72-1268.
Nos. 72-1267, 72-1268.

United States Court of Appeals,


Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Oct. 20, 1972.
Decided Nov. 8, 1972.

Harold L. Randolph, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Walter Hudgins.


Samuel Dashiell, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Marvin Corey Edwards.
Richard M. Meltzer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before STALEY, GIBBONS and JAMES ROSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:

Appellants were indicted for violations of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2113 and 2.
The first four counts charged Edwards with the commission of a bank robbery.
Count 5 charged Hudgins with aiding and abetting the robbery. Appellants
were tried to a jury and found guilty as charged.

On appeal Edwards argues that the district court erred in admitting the in-court
identification testimony of two bank employees. His theory is that their
testimony should have been excluded because the witnesses had seen him
before testifying, and no out-of-court line-up was held. With this we disagree.

In order to testify at trial, an identification witness need not have participated in


a pre-trial out-of-court lineup. United States v. Hill, 449 F.2d 743, 744 (C.A.3,
1971); United States v. Furtney, 454 F.2d 1, n. 2 (C.A.3, 1972). In addition, the
record reveals that the district court held a hearing, as required by Furtney,
supra, to determine the admissibility of the identification testimony. We can
find no error in this regard.

Appellant Hudgins submits that the testimony of his codefendant, Dorantes,


was so unworthy of belief as to be accorded no credibility. This argument is
frivolous. We have also considered his contention based upon the
disappearance of Edwards after the trial had begun. We find this argument to be
without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

You might also like