# United States v. James L. Crowder

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · July 12, 1976 · 543 F.2d 312

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463172

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. James L. CROWDER, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** July 12, 1976
- **Citations:** 543 F.2d 312; 177 U.S. App. D.C. 165; 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8090
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McGOWAN
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Wright, McGowan, Tamm, Leven-Thal, Robinson, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey, Leventhal
- **Cited by:** 49 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/9463172

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting a request for a self-defense instruction because ―[t]he theory fragments the testimony in a selective process . . . so attenuated as to strain credulity to the breaking point‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding the surgical removal of a bullet “reasonable and proper”, under the circumstances of the case
- discussing the significance of a presentation of the evidence to "a neutral and detached magistrate"

## Opinion text

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur unreservedly in Judge Robb’s opinion, and I add this word only to emphasize the degree to which, in my judgment, the Government’s sensitivity to procedural orderliness and fair play contributed to the result we reach. Had it declined to invoke the authority of the judiciary in advance, relying instead upon after the fact justifications, we would have been presented with quite a different — and palpably more difficult — case. But because it proceeded as it did, appellant was, prior to the removal of the bullet and at the Government’s insistence, afforded an evidentiary hearing before a United States District Judge in which he was represented by counsel, asserted his objections, and had the benefit of cross-examination of the Government’s medical witness. Opportunity was further provided appellant, before the operation, to seek appellate scrutiny of the District Court’s findings and authorizations.
This case is something of a sport on its facts, and frequent recurrence of anything like it is hardly to be expected. But any future prosecutor confronted with a similar problem would, in my view, be well advised to look to the procedural example set in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463172. Public record. Not legal advice.