United States v. James Lee King

Appellant was convicted by a jury for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (d) armed bank robbery, placing lives in jeopardy. He alleges error in the admission of certain evidence and in the use of certain in-court identification procedures. We affirm the conviction.

I.

Appellant contends that he was required at the trial to don certain distinctive clothing used in the robbery, and that thereby he was denied a fair trial and due process of law.

In Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 , 31 S.Ct. 2 , 54 L.Ed. 1021 (1910) a witness was permitted to testify that the defendant put on a blouse and the blouse fit him. The Court held there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment. The case was cited with approval in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). If a witness could be permitted to testify to such a proceeding occurring out of court, then certainly the same procedure at the trial, with counsel present, would not be impermissible. Although Holt only considered the Fifth Amendment problem, we see no basis for the claim here of lack of due process and unfairness in the trial. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16…