From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lichtenwalter v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 28, 1951
190 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1951)

Summary

In Lichtenwalter v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 190 F.2d 36 (1951), where defendant contended on appeal that he had been denied the right, through counsel, to make an opening statement to the jury, the court said "there was no denial of the right to make a statement, but rather a proper effort to limit counsel to an outline of proposed proof and to avoid an argumentative and detailed recital of anticipated testimony by the defendant."

Summary of this case from Hampton v. United States

Opinion

No. 10679.

Decided June 28, 1951.

John M. Webster, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard and John C. Conliff, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before CLARK, PROCTOR, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.


Appellant was convicted and sentenced upon an indictment for arson in the malicious burning of the building of another. 22 D.C. Code § 401 (1940). Here, on appeal, he contends: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and (2) that the court deprived him of the right, through counsel, to make an opening statement to the jury. In our opinion neither point is well taken.

There was substantial evidence, including defendant's own admissions, to support the essential findings that the defendant did intentionally, and thus maliciously, set fire to and burn the building. Therefore, the case was properly submitted to the jury and its verdict is conclusive.

As we view the incident concerning the opening statement, there was no denial of the right to make a statement, but rather a proper effort to limit counsel to an outline of proposed proof and to avoid an argumentative and detailed recital of anticipated testimony by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant did testify briefly and no other evidence was offered in his behalf. In such circumstances, interference by the court with the opening statement, had it been unwarranted, could not have prejudiced the defendant.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Lichtenwalter v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 28, 1951
190 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1951)

In Lichtenwalter v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 190 F.2d 36 (1951), where defendant contended on appeal that he had been denied the right, through counsel, to make an opening statement to the jury, the court said "there was no denial of the right to make a statement, but rather a proper effort to limit counsel to an outline of proposed proof and to avoid an argumentative and detailed recital of anticipated testimony by the defendant."

Summary of this case from Hampton v. United States
Case details for

Lichtenwalter v. United States

Case Details

Full title:LICHTENWALTER v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jun 28, 1951

Citations

190 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
89 U.S. App. D.C. 187

Citing Cases

Wright v. United States

Thus, particularly when the defense intends to rely solely upon evidence that will be adduced or highlighted…

United States v. Williams

We have considered these contentions and are of the opinion that they were minor in nature and did not…