# Willie Frank Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 18, 1963 · 314 F.2d 293

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449090

## Case

- **Full name:** Willie Frank BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 1963
- **Citations:** 314 F.2d 293; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6108
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pope
- **Judges:** Duniway, Pope, Browning
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449090

## Opinion text

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur fully in Judge BROWNING’S opinion.
When, as here, there has been a complete disregard of a positive statutory command to record closing arguments, I find myself in a predicament. I do not want to order a new trial merely for want of this recording, in the absence of some proof of prejudice. And still, I know that if, in fact, government counsel made the kind of argument dealt with in Ginsberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 950, 955 , 70 A.L.R.2d 548 , or in Wagner v. United States, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 877, 884 , I would seriously consider reversal for “plain error”, whether objection was or was not made at the time. Compare Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 248 , 63 S.Ct. 561 , 87 L.Ed. 734 .
That any such thing happened is extremely unlikely, but it is not impossible, as the cases cited show. Perhaps the chances are only one in ten thousand, but since I believe that never, if we can possibly avoid it, should any man stand convicted where plain error occurs, I think we have taken here the only step that *297 will make certain that appellant is assured a fair trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449090. Public record. Not legal advice.