Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Clayborne Bynum, Appellant v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 274 F.2d 767
Argued Dec. 14, 1959.Decided Jan. 7, 1960, Petition for Rehearing En Banc DeniedJan. 26, 1960
Mr. Henry L. Johnson, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In Bynum v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465, we reversed the conviction of the present appellant on an indictment for the same crime of which he now stands convicted on a new indictment, resulting in the judgment on appeal. Our reversal rested upon the use by the prosecution of a fingerprint of appellant obtained as a product of his unlawful arrest. On the trial now under review the fingerprint so obtained was not used; instead, an older fingerprint in the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in no way connected with the unlawful arrest, was used for purposes of comparison. There was competent evidence from which the jury could conclude that the Government's expert obtained a fingerprint from the scene of the crime and that both it and the fingerprint from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were those of appellant.
There being no error in the respect which led to our prior decision, above referred to, or otherwise affecting substantial rights of the appellant, the judgment of conviction is accordingly.
Affirmed.