United States v. George Allen Wilson

Good Law
536 F.2d 883·1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 7, 197674-2523California3,386 words

Opinion

Opinion

536 F.2d 883 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Allen WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 74-2523. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 7, 1976. David B. Rosenthal (argued), of Ramsy & Rosenthal, Richmond, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Jerry K. Cimmet, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and HILL, * District Judge. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Wilson appeals from his conviction for bank robbery. Wilson contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress items obtained from a warrantless search of Willis's suitcase, in rulings on several evidentiary matters, and in instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. 2 The day before the robbery Wilson, his codefendant Murray, Taylor and Willis left Los Angeles and spent the evening together in the apartment of Sharon McKee in Oakland. Wilson and Taylor thereafter spent the night in a motel, while Murray and Willis remained all night in McKee's apartment. Wilson, Murray, and Willis each left a suitcase at the apartment. 3 At approximately 10:20 the next morning, three armed men wearing…

Lead Opinion

Hufstedler, J.

Wilson appeals from his conviction for bank robbery. Wilson contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress items obtained from a warrantless search of Willis’s suitcase, in rulings on several evidentiary matters, and in instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence.

The day before the robbery Wilson, his codefendant Murray, Taylor and Willis left Los Angeles and spent the evening together in the apartment of Sharon McKee in Oakland. Wilson and Taylor thereafter spent the night in a motel, while Murray and Willis remained all night in McKee’s apartment. Wilson, Murray, and Willis each left a suitcase at the apartment.

At approximately 10:20 the next morning, three armed men wearing ski masks robbed the bank. Immediately afterward, a police officer saw a man wearing a ski mask and surgical gloves hurriedly enter a car that was waiting in front of the bank with a driver inside and the motor running. The car drove away rapidly amid gunfire from other police officers in pursuit. The officer then saw Murray walking quickly from the direction of the bank with money protruding from his waistband. He was trying to remove a surgical glove from his…

Concurring Opinion

Hill, J.

(specially concurring):

I concur in the result. I also concur in the opinion with the sole exception of the portion which discusses the trial judge’s admission of evidence of Wilson’s knowledge of the prior criminal convictions of his companions. I agree that if the admission of this evidence was error, the error would not justify a reversal. But I disagree with the holding that the admission of such evidence was error. Under the facts of this case, I believe the admission of this evidence as part of the government’s cross-examination, was within the trial court’s discretion.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.