United States v. Donovan Workman

(dissenting) :

Appellant offered two defenses to the assault charge. The first was that appellant was under the influence of narcotics and unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. The second was that appellant’s actions were calculated to stop the officer from taking pictures rather than to injure him.

Appellant’s opening witnesses were two staff attorneys of the American Civil Liberties Union who were present at the demonstration as observers. They were the only defense witnesses who saw the incident in question, except appellant himself. They testified in support of appellant’s second defense to the assault charge.

In substance, their testimony was that appellant twirled the chain over his head and advanced slowly toward the officer, and the officer retreated at the same pace. When the officer backed off, appellant stopped, turned around, and walked away. Both testified that appellant made no sudden move toward the officer.

If the jury had credited this testimony it might well have acquitted appellant on the ground that there was reasonable doubt that bodily harm was either threatened or feared. Appellant’s counsel so argued to the jury.

Thus the weight given…

454 F.2d 1124 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donovan WORKMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 26500. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 24, 1972. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 20, 1972. Lee A. Halley (argued), Seattle, Wash., Ronald J. Meltzer, of Koenigsberg, Brown, Sinsheimer, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant. Charles W. Billinghurst, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. Before MADDEN, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, * BROWNING and CHOY, Circuit Judges. J. WARREN MADDEN, Judge: 1 Workman, hereinafter called the defendant, or the appellant, was charged, in an indictment, with assaulting a police officer, in violation of 18 U.S.Code Sec. 113(c), and in an information, with destruction of United States Government property in violation of 18 U.S.Code Sec. 1361. The two charges were consolidated, for trial by jury, which trial took place on May 5 and 6, 1970, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The jury found the defendant guilty on each of the two charges described above, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for five…

Workman, hereinafter called the defendant, or the appellant, was charged, in an indictment, with assaulting a police officer, in violation of 18 U.S.Code § 113(c), and in an information, with destruction of United States Government property in violation of 18 U.S.Code § 1361. The two charges were consolidated, for trial by jury, which trial took place on May 5 and 6, 1970, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The jury found the defendant guilty on each of the two charges described above, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for five years on the charge of assaulting a police officer, and one year on the charge of destruction of Government property, the second sentence to run consecutively to the first. The defendant appealed. This court has jurisdiction of the appeal by virtue of § 1291 of 28 U.S.Code.

The brief on appeal filed by the counsel who had represented the defendant at the trial contained the following “Specifications of Errors”.

1. The Court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial.

2. The Court erred in that it abused the Court’s privilege of comment in remarks pertaining to appellant’s witnesses, Jan Peterson…

(concurring):

I concur in the result.