UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DAVID REEVES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that even if statements were improperly admitted, the error was not sufficient to justify reversal, especially in a bench trial.
Appellant was convicted of narcotics violations and claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the use of his own statements made without coun…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Incriminating Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of violation of narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174 (1958) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 4705(a) and 7237(b) (1964).
Appellant claims that his constitutional rights were violated by the use of certain of his own statements purportedly made in the absence of counsel and without advice as to his constitutional rights. The statements to which he refers were, first, a statement to the effect that he might at some indefinite time have handled some cocaine “just once” and, second, that he remembered an unspecified “something” about heroin. There is a question as to whether these statements can properly be classified as admissions since they do not appear to be incriminating. But even if they were improperly admitted we do not consider the error sufficient to justify a reversal, especially since the case was tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
“[I]n reviewing proceedings before a judge alone, appellate courts may presume that improper evidence and comments have been rejected, at least absent a showing of substantial prejudice.” In re Bonanno, 2d Cir., 344 F. 2d 830, April 30, 1965.
“It is presumed that in reaching a decision the trial judge has rejected improper evidence. This rule is particularly applicable where the evidence of guilt is strong and convincing, as in the case here.” Teate v. United States, 297 F. 2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1961).
Appellant’s other specifications of error are equally without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984)
-
United States v. Weldon, 384 F.2d 772 (2d Cir. 1967)
-
United States v. Oliver, 363 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Teate v. United States, 297 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1961)
- In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1965)