holding there was probable cause to arrest where defendants were in a car that was stopped "a few minutes" after robbery in a car "about five or ten blocks" from where robbery occurred, car was heading away from the scene of the crime and had run a red light and car's occupants matched "descriptions of the suspects""height, weight, color, facial hair, length of hair, stringy hair and all that sort of stuff" even though there was significant discrepancy in height of one of the suspects
How later courts described this case
- holding there was probable cause to arrest where defendants were in a car that was stopped "a few minutes" after robbery in a car "about five or ten blocks" from where robbery occurred, car was heading away from the scene of the crime and had run a red light and car's occupants matched "descriptions of the suspects""height, weight, color, facial hair, length of hair, stringy hair and all that sort of stuff" even though there was significant discrepancy in height of one of the suspects
- substantial overlap between Rule 33 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- “the inference is inescapable that the required link in the chain of communication is satisfied [since officers having probable cause remained present while others searched car]”
- probable cause, where arres-tees largely matched report of crime "by one white male, one white female, and one black male,” with "rather particularized descriptions of each”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
Since we have no transcript of the proceedings of January 16, 1976, it is impossible to assess the reasons given, if any, for dismissing the first indictment without prejudice. We do not know whether speedy trial concerns were raised at that time. The result of this action is clear, however, i. e., to grant the unprepared government its continuance under the guise of a dismissal without prejudice, with the sure knowledge that the government could, and likely would, seek an immediate reindictment. This procedure was used by the trial judge in Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977). It is one which clearly concerned the second trial judge in this case and met with his strong disapproval. Nevertheless, lacking further information, I agree with the result reached in disposing of the speedy trial issue in this case.
I join in the opinion as to the other issues raised.