John Robert Lee v. United States

Appellant was convicted of bank robbery and has taken this appeal from judgment. The sole question presented is whether the District Court erred in denying motion for new trial sought by appellant upon the ground that the Government deliberately concealed evidence which might clearly have operated in his favor.

If there had been such concealment appellant’s right to due process had been violated and he was entitled to new trial. Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Thomas v. United States, 343 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1965).

Upon trial the principal issue was that of identity. Appellant was identified as the robber by two eyewitness bank employees.

On motion for new trial appellant recited that prior to trial the trial judge had ordered Government counsel to disclose to appellant at the close of the Government’s case the identity of any witness favorable to his case and to produce such person at his request. Appellant showed by affidavit of his counsel that following submission of the case to the jury Government counsel had advised appellant’s counsel that at about the time of the robbery a witness had observed a person vaulting a high fence…

(concurring in part).

I agree with the majority that the order denying motion for new trial should be set aside and that a further hearing *740 on the motion should be held. However, I do not agree that the hearing should be limited to inquiring what the government had learned from the anonymous boy witness.

The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the government suppressed evidence favorable to the accused. A hearing was held on the motion and it was denied for the reason that the evidence known to the government was not favorable to the accused. Obviously the majority believes, as I do, that the government has not been candid with the court and suspicion hangs heavy in the air.

The trial commenced on January 12, 1965. On January 14, 1965, the government filed a partial statement of evidence favorable to the defendant. Later on the same day, the government represented to the court that the partial statement was a complete statement. On January 15, 1965, after the case was submitted to the jury and while the jury was deliberating, counsel for the government told defense counsel of the existence of a witness who had observed a person vaulting a high fence behind…

388 F.2d 737 John Robert LEE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 21469. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 26, 1968. A. Kendall Wood (argued), Michael E. Witte, of Hinchy, Katz, Witte & Wood, San Diego, Cal., for appellant. Shelby Gott (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Edwin L. Miller, Jr., U.S. Atty., Phillip W. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee. Before MERRILL and ELY, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, District Judge. MERRILL, Circuit Judge. Appellant was convicted of bank robbery and has taken this appeal from judgment. The sole question presented is whether the District Court erred in denying motion for new trial sought by appellant upon the ground that the Government deliberately concealed evidence which might clearly have operated in his favor. If there had been such concealment appellant's right to due process had been violated and he was entitled to new trial. Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Thomas v. United States, 343 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1965). Upon trial the principal issue was that of identity. Appellant was identified as the robber by two eyewitness bank employees. On…