# Ronald R. Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · October 15, 1964 · 338 F.2d 543

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450380

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald R. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** October 15, 1964
- **Citations:** 338 F.2d 543; 119 U.S. App. D.C. 203; 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** Miller, Burger, Wright
- **Cited by:** 85 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/9450380

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “when important testimony is anticipated from certain categories of witnesses, whose official or semi-official status is such that a juror might reasonably be more, or less, inclined to credit their testimony, a query as to whether a juror would have such an in…
- holding that a juvenile adjudication is not a "conviction" of a "criminal offense" for purposes of impeachment by prior conviction under D.C.Code § 14-305
- noting that, in the case before it, the military police "performed the functions of police officers even though in a legal sense they had no power to make any more than a citizen's arrest”

## Opinion text

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I join in the foregoing opinion because I think the Sellers case requires reversal. I dissented in that case and still think it is wrong, but I am bound to follow it.
WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the conviction should be reversed. In the interest of brevity, I shall simply state my reasons seriatim.
1. The trial court denied a defense motion that defendant be tried as a juvenile without holding a hearing to determine the legal and factual basis for the motion. 11 D.C.Code § 914 (1961); Franklin v. United States, 117 U.S.App. D.C. 331, 336, 330 F.2d 205, 210 (1964); Pee v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 50-52 , 274 F.2d 556, 559-561 (1959).
2. The trial court refused to ask the jurors on voir dire examination whether they would place more credence in the testimony of a law enforcement officer, merely because he is an officer, than in the testimony of any other witness. Sellers v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 209 , 271 F.2d 475 (1959).
3. The trial court permitted for impeachment purposes, over objection, the use of alleged statements made by the appellant, a juvenile, while in the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. Harling v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 174 , 295 F.2d 161 (1961).
4. The Government was permitted, over objection, to bring out for impeachment purposes that a juvenile defense witness had been committed by the Juvenile Court to the National Training School for Boys on another charge. Pee v. United States, supra.
5. The trial court denied a defense motion for production of a report filed by a police officer who testified for the Government. Such reports are producible under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 . Clancy v. United States, 365 U.S. 312 , 81 S.Ct. 645 , 5 L.Ed.2d 574 (1961); Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 92-99 , 81 S.Ct. 421 , 5 L.Ed.2d 428 (1961).
6. The trial court refused on request to give a missing witness instruction relating to the absence of the prosecuting witness. Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 , 14 S.Ct. 40 , 37 L.Ed. 1021 (1893); Billeci v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 278-279 , 184 F.2d 394, 398-399 , 24 A.L.R.2d 881 (1950).
The above enumeration of error is sufficient in my judgment to require a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450380. Public record. Not legal advice.