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
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 in-court identification testimony is admissible even without a pre-trial lineup, and that the codefendant's testimony and the co-defendant's disappearance did not warrant reversal.
Appellants were indicted for bank robbery and aiding and abetting. Edwards challenged the admissibility of in-court identification testimony, while Hu…
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 Admissibility Of Identification Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hill, 449 F.2d 743 (3d Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Furtney, 454 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1972)