Appendix — United States v. Nobles

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX

Gu the Supreme Gourt of the United States

OcroBer TerRM, 1974

No. 74-634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER

Rosert Lee NOBLES

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED NOVEMBER 22,

1974. CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 20, 1975

Mn the Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroper Term, 1974

No. 74-634

Unitep States oF AMERICA, PETITIONER

Vv.

Rosert Lee Noses

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI T0 THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDEX*

Page

fT a TE 3

EE NT 7

sucerpts fvem the trial tramecrint......<ccccccccccccccccecccccocces S

Defendant's Exhibit G, Supplemental offer of proof, pages 1-7....___- 42

I 48

Ee 50

*A copy of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

was filed as Appendix A to the petition for a writ of certiorari (pp. la—24a). The

Judgment of the court of appeals Was reproduced as Appendix B to the petition (p.

25a), and the order of the court denying rehearing and rejecting the suggestion for

rehearing en bane was reproduced as Appendix C (p. 26a).

(1)

CRIMINAL DOCKET

Unitep States District Court

No. 12113

Tue UNITED STATES

vs.

1. Tommie Lewis Brown

2. Vinci, Davip Swain

3. JONATHAN Ray NoBLEs

4. Ropert Lee Noses

18 USC 2113 (a), (d): Robbery of National Bank; Use of

Date

3/ 5/73

3/12/73

3/20/73

8/19/73

3/22/73

Dangerous Weapon

ReLtevANT Docket ENTRIES

Proceedings

Ent ord for fig Indict & for fixg bail at the following for each

deft : Bail set as $50,000.00 C/S as to deft Brown. Bail set

at $25,000.00 C/S as to deft Swain. Bail set at $75,000.00

C/8 as to defts J. R. Nobles & R. L. Nobles & for the issue

of B/W as to each deft. Fld Indic & issd B/W as to defts

J. R. Nobles & R. L. Nobles. Md JS-2 (LTL-—Crim Cal)

Deft Jonathan Ray Nobles is not present is—FUGITIVE.

Deft Robert Lee Nobles is not present is—FUGITIVE Fld

Designation of Marguerite A. Broady as retained ens! for

deft Brown. Fld Designation of Edward ritz as retained

ensl for deft Swain. Fld Signed Statement of Deft's Con-

stitutional Rights by each deft pres. Defts are arr & State

T/N is as chrgd. Crt ords this case as to all defts assigned to

the cal of Judge Malcolm. M. Lucas & conts matter to 1:50

pm this date for all fur procdgs. (VST)

Fld Note of bail brg purs to 18 USC 3146 bef (MML) at 1:50

on 3/22/73. fb As to deft Robert Lee Nobles.

Ent proc. Deft Robert Lee Nobles pres w/cnsl & is arr. &

pleads Not Guilty to the Indict. Trial date set for 4/3/73,

9:30AM. (MML) Fld deft Robert Nobles stmt of Constutl

Rights. Fld deft Robert Nobles financial affidavit-EJ A253. fb

‘nt proes: Hrg deft Nobles mtn for reductn of bail. Deft.

pres w/ensl. Mtn arg to Crt & Mtn denied. (MML) Fld Deft

Nobles’ Bail reform Act Form #1. an

(3)

4/473

i/ 0/73

4/10/73

4/11/73

4/16/73

4/1273

4/18/73

4/1973

3/20/73

5/21/73

Fid deft Robert Nebles ExParte mtn for the authorization &

the ixsue of an out-of-district snip ord denied 4/4/73 by

MML.: atfid of Nicholas R. Allis.

Fid Ex Parte Mot of deft Nobles through DFPD Nicholas R.

Allis for the authorization for Expert Services and the

issuance of an OUT-OF-DISTRICT Subpoena with Memo

of pts & auths & affid of Nicholas R. Allis in suppt w/Order

(UNSIGNED). rjf retnble 4/10/73, 9:30 AM bef (MML).

rjf

Ent Proce: All defts except deft Jonathan Ray Nobles who is

still a fugitive (1st day) pres w/ensl. Jury is impaneled &

*wu. Mkd exhs & swore witns. Defts dsevy mtns are denied.

Deft Nobles motn for apptmnt of expert is grnted. Cont to

4/11/73 for fur trial. Fld mtn to restrain & enjoin US aty &

supversior. Fld jury instr form. (MML) fb

Ent ProeS: Fur J/T (2nd day). All defts pres w/ensl. Mkd

exhs &sw witns. Cont te 4/12/72, 9:30AM. (MML) fh

Fld Mot of GOV'T to exclude testimony of Dr. Robert Buck-

hout, with pts & auths in supprt. rjf

Ent proes: Fur J/T (3rd day). All defts pres w/ensl. Mrks

exhs & swore Wtnes. Mttr cont te 4/17/73. 9:30 A.M.

(MML) Fb

FUR JURY TRIAL (4th day): Defts pres w/ensl. Mrkd

exhbts & sw witns. Cont to 4/18/73 at 9:30 am. (MML)

Fid lists of Witns & Exhbts. Fld Deft Nobles offer of profe

for testimony of John R. Bond. Fld Deft Nobles opposition

to ord compelling deft to previde govt w/notes of witnes

interview. (MML) an

FUR JURY TRIAL (5th Day): Defts pres w/ensl. Mrkd

exhbts & sw witns. Closing args hrd. Jury instructed &

retires at 2:25 pm to deliberate. Jury retns at 6:05pm & is

excused until 4/19/73 at 9:30am. (MML)

FUR JURY TRIAL (6th Day): All defts pres w/ensl. Jurr

resumes delib at 9:30 am. At 1:55pm Jury retns w/verdict

finding all said defts Guilty as chrgd. Jury is possed & ex-

cused. Defts ord to P/O for I&R & matter cont to 5/21/73

at 1:30pm for sent. (MML)Is Issd abstr to P/O. Fid Jury

notes 3,45. Fld Verdicts. an

Fid B/W as to deft Robert Lee Nobles retnd exec. ed

Ent Proes: Sentence of deft R. L. Nobles. Deft pres w/ensl.

Deft committed to custody of A/G for 25 yrs under 18 TSC

4208(a)(2). Deft advsd of right to appeal. (MML) Fld

Judgmt Ent 5/23/73, MD JS-3.

6/ 1/73

71/5

6/27/73

8’ 7/73

2/ 6/74

S 30/74

Ww 4/74

10 25/74

Fld NOTICE OF APPEAL as to deft Rebert Lee Nobles

appealing from Final Judgment dated 5/21.7% & fle fee

waived as ensl Nicholas R. Allix, apptd by Court. Fld

Motion to proceed in Forma Pauperis and Certificate, At-

torney Certification signed by atty Nicholas R. Allis &

Designation of Record on Appeal signed by Atty Nicholas

R. Allis & AUSA Darrell MacIntyre & Ord (MML) thereon

GRANTING appeal in Forma Vauperix as te said deft.

Entered 6/175. Issd required copies. ag

Fld org. 2 cys and Clerk's file cy of rptr’s transcript of preedgs

had on Apr. 10, 11, 1973 (vel 1): Apr. 12. 1978 «vel 2):

Apr. 17. 18, 19, 1973 (vol 8) Ixsd and fwd te CA orig and

3 eys of ree on appeal along with orig 2 eys and Clerk's file

ey of rptr’s transcript of predgs had on Apr. 10. 11, 1973 (vol

1): Apr. 12. 1973 (vol 2): Apr. 17, 18, 19, 1975 (vel 3)

(no exhbts fwd at this time)

Fld ce Judgmt & Comm as to deft Robert Lee Nobles retnd

exee at U.S.P.. MeNeil Isl. Steilacoom, Wash. ed

Fwd to C/A ey of ree on appeal along with cy of reptr's

transcript of predgs had on Apr 10. 11, 1975: (vel 1): Apr.

12, 1973 (vel 2): Apr. 17, 18, 19, 1973 (vol 5) fld thix date.

Fwd to C/A Plaintiff's Exhibitsx 3 through 6 ax supplemental

rec. cw

Ree'd frm C/A Plaintiff's Exhibits 3 throngh 6

Reed fr C/A ce of jdgmt of C/A (defts Brown, Swain and

Nobles) reversing in part. affrmg in part and remanding to

USDC (gave to Ct Clerk DH — cy to DM)

Ree'd fr C/A ey of ord of C/A denying “mot for reasonable

bail, ete. (ey to Ct Clerk DH)

(Filed March 5, 1973, Clerk, U.S. District Court, Central Dis-

trict of California, by Andy Nelson, Deputy]

United States District Court for the Central District of

California

September 1972 Grand Jury

No. 12113 CD

Unitep STaTes oF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF

Tommie Lewis Brown, Vircit Davip SWAIN, JONATHAN Ray

Noses, and Rosert Lee NoBLes, DEFENDANTS

Indictment—(18 U.S.C. See. 2113 (a), (d): Robbery of

National Bank; Use of Dangerous Weapon)

The Grand Jury charges:

(18 U.S.C. See. 2113(a) (d))

On or about February 6, 1973, in Los Angeles County, within

the Central District of California, defendants Tommie Lewis

Brown. Vircit Davin Swain, JoNATHAN Ray NOoBLEs and

Rogert Lee Nostes, by force and violence and by intimidation,

knowingly and willfully took from victim tellers Beryl Berman,

Peter Van Gemeren, and Elaine Zanders, $4,051.00, belonging

to and in the care, custody, control, management and possession

of the Crocker National Bank, Pico-Bronson Office, 4117 West

Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, a national bank, a

member bank of the Federal Reserve System and a bank whose

deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Ccurporation.

In committing the offense heretofore charged, defendants

Tommie Lewis Brown, Vircit Davip Swain, JONATHAN Ray

Nop.es and Ropert Lee Nostes assaulted and put in jeopardy

(7)

the lives of Beryl Berman, Peter Van Gemeren and Elaine

Zanders by the use of dangerous weapons and devices.

A true bill.

SHIRLEY A, REUTER,

Foreman.

Wilham D. Keller,

WituramM D. KELLER,

United States Attorney.

I hereby attest and certify on February 21, 1975. that the

foregoing document is a full, true and correct copy of the orig-

inal on file in my office, and in my legal custody. Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Central District of California, By (illegi-

ble), Deputy.

Excerpts FroM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

* * ~ * *

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PETER VAN GEMEREN

os * + 7 *

By Mr. MacIntyre:

22] You say you saw two other men at the front of the bank?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you see either of those two men in the courtroom

today?

A. One.

Q. Would you point him out.

A. The man all the way at the end, the blue suit.

Mr. MacIntyre. May the record reflect the witness has iden-

tified the defendant Robert Nobles.

The Covrr. Yes.

Mr. MacInryre. All right.

<). Would you place a 3 on the government's Exhibit Number

2. 2 D3, where you saw the defendant Robert Nobles.

A. | Witness complies. ]

Q. You have put that D3 right at the entrance [23] of the

bank?

A. Ye Se

= * * * *

[53] Q. How long would vou estimate that the men were in

the bank?

A. Five. seven minutes.

Q. Five to seven minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Just one moment, sir.

How would you describe the clothing worn by the defendant

Robert Nobles as you have identified him as standing under the

surveillance camera at the door?

A. It looked siinilar.

Q. How would you identify his clothing? What if anything

did he have on his head?

A. I’m not positive.

* * * * *

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PETER VAN GEMEREN

By Mr. ALuIs:

[381 Q. Do you recall whether the man under the surveil-

lance camera was faced towards you or away from you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall whether his side was to you at any time?

A. Yes, I think so.

[39] Q. How longa time would that have been?

A. Half a minute.

Q. Do you recall whether his back was towards you at any

time?

A. Yes.

Q. For how long a time was that?

A. Most of the time.

* * * * *

[58] Q. Was it the bank robber under the surveillance

camera?

A. Yes.

Q. Then did you state to the FBI that

Mr. MacInryre. Your Honor, objection to this type of ques-

tioning. It is improper cross examination.

What counsel is doing is reading from a 302 interview of

this witness with the FBI, and it is improper cross examina-

tion. He is asking compound questions that go through the

whole sheet.

Why not just have the witness read the sheet?

[59] The Court. You may approach the bench, gentlemen.

* * % * *

The Court. All right. Let's get to the point.

The objection is overruled.

[65] * ~~ _ * *

By Mr. Auuis:

. bh Is it your testiony that because this interview was many

veeks ago, you cannot recall many of the r

seek y details of your de-

. Mr. MacIntyre. Objection, Your Honor. That is not his tes-

grace eo, is that he cannot recall how he described

is individual's hair. I think it is improper er inati

OSS €

to make that statement. — eee

It assumes facts not in evidence.

The Court. Overruled.

[ 67] a * * & @

m.. And roe ~% individual was facing the manager and the

oyees locate i

me " y | on the side directly across from the teller

Mr. MacIntyre. Objecti i

? . Objection, your

ania your honor. It is confusing and

PR sg witness has testified as to the fact that he observed

is person's face, that he then turned toward the bank mana-

” he saw _ from the side and from the front

can t see that that question is anythi

udsuaian. ything but argumentative

* * e ‘

. ” By Mr. Auuts:

. Does this refresh your recollecti

sh ) ction about w ,

the FBI at the interview? en

A. Yes, it does.

Nee od tell the FBI that you had noticed another

ane . ACINTYRE. Objection, your Honor. This is improper

— ceneneeee unless this counsel is trying to impeach this

it — with testimony inconsistent with his testimony at trial

= ao been no foundation laid for this whatsoever. It is up

2 is Jury to determine the credibility of this witness and

us recollection of the events. ig

If he said something inconsistent from this witness stand

With an interview with th

. e FBI, then cow .

the right to point that out. isel, of course, has

But these things which this witness is being badgered with

and asked to read are not inconsistent with any testimony given

in this trial.

The Court. Let’s simply ask him, Mr. Allis, now that his

recollection is refreshed what he then did tell the FBI.

* * ‘ e *

[77] Q. Do you recall on March 26, 1973 being interviewed

by a Mr. John Bond?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Do you recall being interviewed by an investigator with

the Federal Public Defender’s Office?

A. Yes, I think I do.

[78] Q. You think you did, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall stating to Mr. Bond what part of the man

under their surveillance camera you saw?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. Isn’t it also a fact that——

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor, I think the witness ought to

have the opportunity to refresh his recollection from any docu-

ment in the possession of the Federal Public Defender’s Office,

and I think government counsel ought to be furnished a copy

of it in prosecuting this case.

The Court. Mr. Allis, do you have any objection?

Mr. Auuis. I don’t have any objection to refreshing the wit-

ness’ memory with my interview.

® * 7

* *

[89] By Mr. ALLIs:

Q. Do you recall ever telling anyone outside this courtroom

that the only part of this man you saw was his back?

Mr. MacIntyre. Objection, your Honor. It is an ambiguous

question. Anyone, when or where?

The Court. Overruled.

The Witness. I saw the side of him and his back.

By Mr. ALLIs:

Q. That was not the question.

The Court. Just a moment. Let’s reread the question.

Listen carefully to the question, Mr. VanGemeren.

| Whereupon the record was read as follows: “Q. Do you re-

call ever telling anyone outside this courtroom that the only

part of this man you saw was his back? *’]

The Witness. No, I do not recall.

| 90 | By Mr. Atuis:

Q. Isn't it a fact that on March 26, 1973 you had an inter-

view with Mr. John Bond of the Federal Public Defender’s

Office?

A. I believe that’s true.

Q. And isn’t it a fact that you told him the only thing you

recalled seeing was the back of the holdup man? :

Mr. MacInryre. Objection, your Honor; no foundation.

The Court. Overruled.

You may answer.

The Witness. I do not recall.

By Mr. Auuts:

(). Do you recall anything you said to Mr. Bond?

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor, that is an ambiguous question.

I think the witness ought to be allowed the right to refresh his

recollection if there is any written statement that he gave to

Mr. Bond, and I think the government ought to be furnished

a copy of it.

The Court. I think we resolved that yesterday, did we not?

Mr. Allis had agreed to allow the witness to examine whatever

statement he made.

Has that been done, Mr. Ailis?

Mr. Auuts. No, it has not, your Honor.

The Court. All right.

doh Mr. Atuis. I would like to approach the bench on that

matter. °

Mr. MacInryre, I would like to ask the Court to order coun-

sel to give me a chance to——

The Covurr. You may approach the bench.

{The following proceedings were had at the bench, outside

the hearing of the jury: ]

The Court. It is my recollection, Mr. Ailis, that you had

agree to show the witness this particular statement so that we

could proceed. Has that been done?

Mr, Aus. I had agreed to that, Your Honor. and after sav-

ing that yesterday, I talked it over with several other attorneys

In our office,

It is our position that we do not have to do that because I am

only trying to use this interview for impeachment purposes.

However, if your Honor wishes me to, I will state my posi-

tion that I would rather not.

The Court. I think it appropriate that you should do so, and

then he can either agree that he said it or deny that he said it,

whatever the allegedly impeaching statements are.

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor, could the Court order him to

furnish me a copy of it, too?

[92] Mr. Aris: Again, I object to that, your Honor, that it

is improper.

The Court. He is going to be able to look at it eventually on

redirect. is he not? Is he not going to be entitled to look at the

various statements that the witness either denies or admits to?

Before trial, I agree it would have been improper, and I

wouldn’t have allowed it. but now he has a right to go into it

ultimately just as you do with the Jencks Act statements. I

think it is proper that he should have a look as well as the

witness.

Mr. Aus. I would just like to note my objection, your

Honor.

The Court. All right.

Mr. MacIntyre. May I have acopy right now?

[The following proceedings were had in open court in the

presence of the jury: |

Mr. Auuts. Your Honor, may I have a moment to tear this,

because it is amidst other interviews.

The Court. Very well.

Mr. Atuts. Thank you.

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor, if there is any excising of state-

ments, I think the Court ought to hear it. 7

The Court. Are you representing, Mr. Allis, that there are

interviews on the sheet of other witnesses or [93] potential

witnesses?

Mr. Auuts. I am, your Honor, and I would like your Honor

to take a look at it to make sure, but I do not feel.that it is my

duty, and that it would be improper for me to show this to

Mr. MacIntyre.

The Court. Are you representing that you are presenting

the entire statement of this witness to this witness?

Mr. Avuts. Yes, Iam, your Honor.

The Court. All right. You may proceed.

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor

The Court. If you wish to approach the bench, you may.

Mr. Mac'nryre. I would like to just—I don’t feel like I ought

to have to appreach the bench. I would just like to hand this to

the Clerk of the Court, and have it marked as the Court's

exhibit, because it is really unintelligible to me.

I mean it is cut into pieces and there is no name on it or

anything. I can’t—there is a name of this witness——

The Court. It will be marked for identification.

Mr. Auuis. If there is a piece of scotch tape I will gladly

scotch tape this under the other, and I believe that that may

make it clearer to the United States attorney.

[94] Mr. MacIntyre. If he presents it I would like it marked

as the Court's exhibit.

The Courr. We will mark it as defendent’s A for

identification.

Mr. MacIntyre. And I would like also the representation

that counsel is in possession of no other written or recorded

statement of any interview of this witness.

The Court. We will take that up subsequently. Let me see

the exhibit, and then you can mark it. .

[Whereupon the document hereinabove referred to was

handed to the Court. ]

| Whereupon the Court looks at the document hereinabove

referred to. |

The Courr. Very well. Let’s proceed.

[Said document was marked Defendant’s Exhibit A for

identification. |

The Courr. Mr. Allis, do you wish this placed before the

witness?

Mr. Auuis. Yes.

The Court. Would you place it before the witness, please,

Mr. Clerk.

[Said document placed before the witness. ]

The Courr. Okay.

* * a _ *

[98] By Mr. AtLis:

Q. Does reading this interview with Mr. Bond refresh your

recollection as to whether you told him that the only thing you

recalled seeing was the back of the man under their surveillance

camera?

Mr. MacIntyre. Objection, your Honor. It misquotes the

evidence and what this witness told Mr. Bond on that occasion.

The Court. All right. State your objection.

Mr. MacIntyre. I object to the question as being—There is

no foundation for it, first of all. Second of all—Well, that is the

main objection. There is no foundation to that question what-

soever.

It is what this witness testifies to in this courtroom that is

important, unless he has been impeached by some prior inter-

view, and there is no foundation for any impeachment.

The Covrr. Just a moment. The objection is overruled.

[99] Do you have the question in mind, sir, or do you wish

it reread?

The Witness. Reread, please.

The Court. Reread the question, please.

[Whereupon the record was read as follows: “Q. Does

reading this interview with Mr. Bond refresh your recollection

as to whether you told him that the only thing you recalled

seeing was the back of the man under their surveillance

camera? ’’]

The WitNEss. Yes, it does.

By Mr. ALLIs:

Q. Did in faet you tell Mr. Bond that the only thing you

recalled seeing was the back of the holdup man under the sur-

veillance camera?

A. I don’t recall that.

Q. What does the statement refresh your recollection as to?

A. My statement says that I only saw the back of the man.

Q. Does this refresh your recollection as to what you saw

on the day of the bank robbery?

A. Yes.

[100] Q. Did in fact you see only the back of the bank

robber?

A. No.

Q. Does this refresh your recollection as to what vou told

Mr. Bond on the day of his interview?

Mr. MacIntyre. Objection, your Honor. That question has

been asked and answered now three times.

The Court. Yes. Sustained.

* * * - _

(1 19] [The following proceedings were had at the bench. out-

side the hearing of the jury: ]

= * o o a

Mr: Auuis. At this time, your Honor, I move in the alterna-

tive for a mistrial because of the continual testimony of the

United States Attorney. He has repeated a number of times

to the jury that there were two positive ID’s by this witness

or, in the alternative, that your Honor admonish him to keep

his objections simple and clear, and not to testify.

* * * * *

[120] The Covrr. All right. From now on if there is going

to be any objection by other side you will simply state legal

ground for the objection. and the Court will either rule or, if

you wish to argue the matter, you may approach the bench.

RECROSS EXAMINATION OF PETER VAN GEMEREN

[133] By Mr. A.ts:

Q. Nv hen you spoke with Mr. MacIntyre in his office this

morning was there any mention of the name John Bond?

A. No.

Q. Was there any mention of what you could answer in re-

sponse to my questions?

A. No.

Q. What did you talk about at that interview?

Mr. MacInryre. Your Honor, I think it is an unintelligible

question. I think the witness testified he has only been inter-

viewed twice, once by me yesterday morning.

He testified earlier in trial that he did not talk with me about

the facts of the case this morning, and I think the question is

confusing.

Mr. Auuts. Objection, your Honor. I request that the testi-

mony of Mr. MacIntyre be stricken and my objections pre-

viously made at the bench I request again.

[134] The Covrt. The motion is denied.

- * ~ * *

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GARY HOFFMAN

* * * *

My Mr. MacIntyre:

[323] * « © ° *

Q. You may resume the stand. Where was the fourth indi-

vidual, did you say? Where would the fourth individual be?

A. Well, I’m confused on the numbers.

Q. You pointed to the location of three individuals as shown

in the surveillance composite. Where would the fourth individ-

ual be?

A. The fourth, again, to the diagram?

Q. Yes.

A. The fourth individual was positioned approximately here

(indicating), to the-——

Q. You are pointing to an area underneath the [324] sur-

veillance camera. Is that the front door of the bank?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. You may have aseat.

[325] Do you see the individual in this courtroom that you

saw at the front of the bank?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Would you point him out?

A. The gentleman here in the blue suit.

Mr. MacIntyre. May the record retlect the witness has

identified the defendant Robert Nobles.

The Covurr. Yes.

[327] & & ae 7

Q. Looking at approximately the man you have iaentified as

defendant Robert Nobles, how far approximately were you from

him in the bank?

A. I would say approximately, judging in terms of distance,

perhaps from me to you.

Mr. MacIntyre. Let the record reflect that is approxi-

mately——

The Court. Just a moment. I can give you an exact measure-

ment. We have had it measured previously. Twenty-four feet.

Mr. MacIntyre. All right.

e e & * e

[328] Q. First of all, how long would you estimate that the

robbers were in the bank?

570-1453—75- —-3

A. I would guess that it would be somewhere in the vicinity

of five to eight minutes, something of that nature.

Q. During that period cf time for what period of time was

your attention focused on the man you have identified as

Robert Nobles? Approximately.

A. Perhaps two, three minutes. possibly. It’s hard to really

put it——

Q. About a third of the time the robhery was being com-

mitted?

A. Yes.

Mr. ALuis,. Objection, your Honor: leading.

The Court. Sustained.

By Mr. MacIntyre: |

Q. The man you have identified as defendant Robert Nobles.

what if anything did he sav?

A. There was one point in the robbery where a female at-

tempted to enter the bank and was grabbed by the defendant.

and an attempt was made to physically force her into the

bank,

At that time T heard the defendant indicate something to

the effect of, “Come on, get in here. Get in here.”

. - . * *

[329] Q. You were interviewed by the FBI on March 238,

1973, were you not?

* * * * *

Q. At that interview you were shown a photo [330] spread,

were you not?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

a _ — * =

CROSS EXAMINATION OF GARY HOFFMAN

* * * * *

By Mr. At.is:

{351] * * * * o

Re. What position was the man under the surveillance camera

. What body position did he take during the time that you

saw him under the surveillance camera?

A. He would have been generally facing toward the teller

area, and then occasionally shifting to his right, in terms of

bedy position.

Q. Could you draw with an arrow the position [352] where

he was facing?

A. Well

Mr. Macinryre. On what occasion. vour Honor? I think the

question is confusing. He said he faced both ways, toward the

witness and toward the teller’s area.

The Covrr. All right. Let’s clarify the question, please.

Mr. Auuis. I don't believe that he did testify that way, your

Honor. Again, I object to Mr. Maclnutyre testifying.

Q. How much of the time, if you ean recall, was he facing

the teller area, the first line that you marked?

A. I really can't say. At that time I was really not cognizant

of actual time spent. I do know that [353] on many occasions

when I looked that way he was observing the other gentlemen

in the back of the bank that was behind the tellers’ cages.

Q. What was the total time that vou shifted your glances

to him and saw him?

A. I would say probably about one-third of the time that I

was viewing the holdup.

Q. Do you recall him facing the other side of the bank away

from the tellers’ area at any time?

A. Iean't recall that he did, no.

* * * * *

{385} A. I had another occasion to meet with him at the

lineup, which was held at the County jail.

Q. When did that occur?

A. I believe it was two days after that. on a Thursday

evening, to make it, I guess, the 30th of March.

[402 | a * * * *

Q. Isn't it a fact that you told Mr. John Bond of the Federal

Public Defenders office that you were not 100 percent sure

that that was the man?

Mr. MacIntyre. Objection. your Honor. There is no founda-

tion for that question as to the fact that he ever talked to John

Bond, when he talked to him, and the circumstances. of that

interview. Just throwing out a bald statement like that is——

The Covrr. Sustaimed.

By Mr. Attts:

Q. Do you recall the conversation with Mr. John Bond on

April 6, 1973?

A. Was this in a telephone conversation?

Q. Yes, it was.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. During that conversation did he request that he meet

with you for an interview?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Would it be a fair statement to say that [403] you would

be on the road and that you agreed to be interviewed by

telephone?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it a fact, that you told Mr. Bond during that inter-

view that you could not be 100 percent sure that the man in the

bank under the surveillance camera was the same man in the

lineup?

[404] * e e * &

The Wirness. I would have to say yes, that is basically the

text of what I told Mr. Bond.

By Mr. AuuIs:

Q. And isn’t it a fact that you told Mr. Bond that to you

all the blacks appear to be alike?

A. I don't believe I indicated that to him.

Q. You do not recall stating that to Mr. Bond?

A. No, I do not.

Q. That all blacks look alike?

A. No, I do not, sir.

Mr. Auuis. No further questions. I would like to approach

the bench, your Honor.

The Court. You may approach the bench.

[405] [The following proceedings were had at the bench out-

side the hearing of the jury: ]

Mr. MacInryre. Your Honor, first I would request the Public

Defender furnish me a copy of any interview, notes or recorded

statements of Mr. Bond—in regard to a phone call. I notice he

has a copy, and I would like to have a copy of that at this time

before I am able to proceed with redirect examination of this

witness.

The Court. Mr. Allis?

Mr. Auuis. I object to that, your Honor. It is not called for

under the law.

The Court. It seems only fair, if the government gives you

copies of all the statements made. I think that the government

is entitled, in view of the attempt at least cf impeachment to

see a copy of the statement that this witness made.

Do you have any points and authorities that would indicate

that the government is not entitled to at least view the state-

ment of this witness?

Mr. Auuis. I don’t have right here. I am sure that I can find

some within a half-hour.

The Court. All right. I will give you time to submit points

and authorities. Otherwise, please give Mr. MacIntyre a copy.

* * e *

[407] Mr. Atiis. Yes, your Honor. I would like to move for a

mistrial. Mr. MacIntyre’s testimony to the jury has nrejudiced

my client to such an extent that I do not believe [408] the

jury can reach a fair decision based on the testimony given in

this trial. ;

[409] . * . * .

The Court. I am going to deny the motion for a mistrial,

but I am going to instruct you, Mr. MacIntyre, in the future

if, for example, you feel, taking a specific example given, that

investigative procedures were in some way improper—you

may ask to approach the bench and you may state it before

the bench. Do not in the future make such statements before

the jury.

* * e & _

[414] The Court. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion

that a witness had stated at some relevant time that insofar as

he, the witness, was concerned, all people of the black race

looked similar.

Mr. MacInryre. All right.

The Court. Would that not be quite relevant in determining

his ability to make specific identification among four people of

the black race, in that he had previously stated that they all

looked similar or equal, or the same?

Mr. MacInryre. If he had, yes.

The Court. Of course, that is not for the Court to determine.

That is for the jury to determine, whether or net he had made

such a statement.

It can’t be excluded from the jury’s consideration based only

on the witness’s statement that he never said it.

Mr. MacIntyre. You are correct.

The Courr. Mr. Allis has a right to introduce what he con-

tends are impeaching statements, if they are generally impeach-

ing, and it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of the

respective witnesses, this witness, Mr. Hoffman, and the wit-

ness Mr. Bond.

* * > * *

[416] Q. Directing your attention to the time of the robbery

in the bank, which was the robber of the four which you could

see most clearly?

A. I would have to say would be the one in the front under-

neath the cameras.

Q. Isn't it a fact that you told John Bond during the inter-

view with him that the man who was standing at the teller’s

cage directly across from you was the one you could see more

clearly and would be able to identify?

[417] - e a _ a

“Q. Isn't it a fact that you told John Bond during the inter-

view with him that the man who was standing at the teller’s

cage directly across from you was the one you could see more

clearly and would be able to identify?” ]

The Witness. Yes, I believe I said that.

* * * _ *

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JAMES R. WILKINS

[422 By Mr. MacIntyre:

Q. Mr. Wilkins, by whom are you employed?

A. By the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[423] * . * * *

Q. When, where and under what circumstances did that ar-

rest take place?

A. The arrest occurred on March 15, 1973 at approximately

10:30 P.M. in the evening, at a bottomless-topless bar located

at 11151 South Vermont Street in the City of Los Angeles.

Mr. Aus. Your Honor, at this time I request that I be per-

mitted to approach the bench.

* * * * &

Mr. Atuis. Your Honor. I move that the testimony concern-

ing bottomless-topless bars be stricken as unduly prejudicial.

e * oe & a

[4241 Mr. Auuis. Your Honor, if I my, it is my position that

when a man is arrested and then he is thrown up against a wall

and patted down, and then asked what his name is, and [425]

he denies it, that before that denial can be used in court against

him it must be shown that he was given his Miranda rights.

And, in addition, your Honor, I move that no testimony

Rien

The Court. You have given a different fact situation than

the offer of proof of Mr. MacIntyre. I understand that this offi-

cer went in and asked him what his name was——

Mr. MacInryre. Right.

The Courr.—before any arrest occurred. Now, I may have

it wrong.

Mr. MacIntyre. That is correct. He told him to come out-

side. Robert Nobles went outside and said he was not Robert

Nobles.

* * * * ae

[431] The Court. Ladies and gentlemen, you are admonished

that the scene or the locale of this particular episode is of no

materiality to this particular case, and you are admonished to

ignore it.

_ * 7 ee

A. Myself and another agent, Special Agent Wayne L.

Wickizer, W-i-c-k-i-z-e-r, went into the establishment and saw

Mr. Nobles sitting at the end of the bar, in a crowd of other

people.

Mr. Wickizer and myself approach Mr. Nobles, Mr. Wickizer

going to one side of him, and I went to the other side.

I made the statement, “FBI, Robert Nobles, you are under

arrest.”

Q. What occurred then?

A. At that time I believe he had a glass, a drink in his hand.

He looked at me, made no effort to move whatsoever, and at

that time Special Agent Wickizer and myself removed Mr.

Nobles from the stool and proceeded to take him [432] outside

of the establishment.

* 7 * & +

[433 } By Mr. MacIntyre:

Q. After you and Special Agent Wickizer removed the

defendant Robert Nobles from the bar, what occurred then?

A. He was immediately taken outside of the establishment

and placed up against a wall where Special Agent Wickizer and

Special Agent Jerry D. Price, P-r-i-c-e, proceeded to frisk him

for any weapons which he might have on him.

At that time he was handcuffed and taken a short distance

away from the opening of the establishment.

Q. What if anything did he say in regard to his identity?

A. When I asked hin if he were Robert Nobles he denied—

He said, “I’m not Nobles.”

Q. Then what occurred?

[434] A. I told him that I knew he was Robert Nobles and

that he might as well admit his identity. He again denied his

identity.

Q. Then what occurred?

A. At this time, through my prior investigation, I knew that

Robert Nobles had several tattoos on his forearms.

At this time with the assistance of Special Agent Wickizer

we proceeded to roll up the sleeves on his suit, and at this time

I observed on his arms the particular tattoos that I knew the

subject to have as being Robert Nobles.

When confronted with this, he said, “Okay.”

ARGUMENT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY REGARDING

REQUEST FOR DEFENSE iNVESTIGATOR’S MEMORANDUM

[465] The Courr. Gentlemen, if we may, let’s shorten the

[466] issue. The issue, as the Court views it—First of all, the

Court is not going to order disclosure of this memorandum at

this time. At the present time there has been no impeachment

and will be no impeachment until the investigator takes the

stand and testifies as to the allegedly impeaching statements.

Therefore, the issue will not arise until the investigator does

take the stand. The issue thereafter will be whether or not for

utilization for impeachment purposes the government should

be entitled to examine the memorandum made by the investi-

gator, presumptively concurrently with his inquiry of the al-

legedly impeached witness for purposes of furthering the

government's cross examination.

That is how I view the issue. If counsel view it differently,

: course, let’s discuss the issue before we discuss the resolution

of it.

Mr. MacInryre. I think that is the issue, your Honor.

The Court. Mr. Allis, do you view it in any different light

than that?

Mr. Autis. Your Honor, it is agreeable with me to confine it

to that issue. However, the Court did order me previously to

produce a statement of the investigator involving an interview

by him with a witness, and I assumed that your Honor was

talking about the same thing in this situation.

I would like to note my objection to that again.

[467] The Court. Upon reflection, there has not been any

impeachment of this witness, as yet, I am sure you agree, until

the actual impeaching witness testifies as to the impeaching

statement.

Simply asking him, “Didn’t you tell—” so and so something

or other, unless he admits it, of course, then there has been

no impeachment. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Axis. I certainly do.

The Court. All right. So the Court is not going to order the

disclosure of any investigative reports until the investigator

has taken the stand, testified in full and related, if he does, the

allegedly impeaching statement.

Then the issue will arise as to whether or not the govern-

ment, in pursuing cross examination, may be afforded an op-

portunity to examine the prior memorandum made at the time

when presumptively the facts were fresher in the investigator’s

mind.

Now. do you wish to be heard in that regard, Mr. Allis?

Mr. Auurs. Your Honor, I think I will rest on this memoran-

dum of points and authorities. First, basically, Rule 16(c)

does not authorize the discovery of any defense documents.

The Court. I don’t think 16(¢) is applicable. We are really

talking about post-testimony production, are we not, [468]

16(¢) having to do with pretrial discovery.

Mr. Auuts. As I understand it, your Honor, then Rule 16(e)

applies, does apply, on discovery.

There is an exception in 16(¢) to the government concerning

witnesses, the government providing statements of witnesses.

Now, the Jencks Act covers that and provides only for the

government to give statements of witnesses after they have

been examined on direct.

That act provides for no reciprocal discovery by the defense.

ATO -153-——-T75—_—4

Furthermore, your Honor, as in the last two pages of the

memorandu..., we feel that our position is that the Fifth

Amendment rights of the defendant would be violated because

I would be forced to disclose possible material detrimental to

him that I have gotten through use of my investigative sources.

Finally, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights would be

affected because his counsel’s performance of thorough investi-

gation would be hindered if that investigation had to be con-

ducted in such a manner as to avoid any writing down of ma-

terial which is detrimental to the defendant.

Lastly, your Honor, Hikeman versus Taylor, which was a

civil case, prohibited the discovery of the work of statements

of witnesses for one’s side on the grounds that they were the

work product of the attorney.

[469] We also feel that the investigative material in this case

is the work product of the attorney.

The Court. Isn't that relative to pretrial discovery, Hikeman

versus Taylor?

Mr. Auuts. It did have to do with pretrial discovery, your

Honor, but the principle remains the same, because it was based

on a constitutional principle, and chat constitutional principle

in our view is not waived with regard to what time at trial it

is put forward.

The Court. Thank you. Mr. MacIntyre? Before you begin

your argument, Mr. MacIntyre, will you recite for the record

what you wish this memorandum for and what portions of it

you wish.

Mr. MacInryre. What I wish the memorandum for?

The Court. The investigator's memorandum or statement.

Mr. MacIntyre. All right. I would desire to be able to look

at the memorandum so that I can effectively cross-examine a

witness who, possibly, could have given or made any inaccurate

notes or falsified testimony given from a government witness.

I think in order to effectively do that and to effectively prose-

cute and fulfill my duties as an Assistant United States Attor-

ney I should be given the right to see any memorandum in the

possession of this investigator which might be conrtrary to his

testimony on the witness stand.

[470] ITwillsubmit the matter to the Court.

The Court. All right. The Court is going to rule as follows:

first of all, the government may not have the memorandum

€

‘ —-*

until the witness has taken the stand and has indicated the

particular impeaching testimony which was the last part of

Mr. Hoffman's testimony relative to his inability to distinguish

between people of the black race.

And if he does make such a statement, if he and Mr. Bond

make such a statement, then I believe the government is

entitled to an examination of the memorandum—not before

that time—but after that time, after he has completed his

entire testimony.

The Court. The issue, of course, may not arise. It is depend-

ent upon whether or not Mr. Bond is called to testify, but

that is the Court’s view at this time.

Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you.

Mr. Autuis. Your Honor, one more comment, and that is

that

The Covurr. I will say this to assist you, Mr. Allis, while I

think about it. I am sure there are no statements by any of the

defendants contained in this particular memorandum, and my

order is going only to this particular memorandum. I am not

generalizing on any other memorandum or memoranda you

may have.

[471] It goes only to this particular memorandum involving

It goes only to this particular memorandum [471] involving

the particular witness Hoffman. If you represent to mo that

there are matters contained therein, such as recitals by the

defendants or your defendant, of course, I would view it imper-

ative that you have the opportunity to excise that, perhaps

after an in-camera session with the Court, or something of

that nature.

I am specifically concerned only with the Hoffman statement

of Mr. Bond. Now, I am sorry I interrupted you.

Mr. Auuis. I would like to reserve anything further until

such time at which the citation may arise, if I may.

The Court. All right.

* * * * *

ARGUMENT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY REGARDING

GOVERN MENT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT

BUCKHOUT

[472] Los Angeles, California, Tuesday, April 17, 1973,

10:15 a.m.

* * x * *

[475] Dr. Buckhout is a recognized expert in the area and

can testify to the generally accepted theory that identification is

a decision-making process which involves both factors having

to do with the physical situation and factors having to do with

the psychological input on the particular observer.

As far as interfering with the jury’s function, your Honor,

Dr. Buckhout will testify on the stand, if permitted, that he has

no intentions of doing this, that it is up to the jury.

* * * * *

[476] Mr. Auuis. That is correct, your Honor. And he will also

testify that there are approximately 16 factors involved in

eyewitness identification. He is quite prepared to testify that

many of them are not involved in the identifications here, but

some which I have specifically mentioned ‘n the offer of proof

are involved.

[477 | + * * * .

He will describe the experiments that he has done to illustrate

that these factors do indeed play a part in eyewitness identi-

fication.

* * * * *

Mr. Auuts. Various experiments have been done with each

of these 16 factors. Some of these 16 factors are present here.

For example, stress is one of those 16 factors. Recause of the

presence of stress in the particular incident involved here, this

is going to have an effect on the ability to perceive of the ob-

server in this case, and it is going to affect it so that it is going

to be less reliable than it would have been had this factor of

stress not been present,

os * * * *

[481] The Courr. It is the Court’s view, and the Court has

given some considerable thought to this, and has read every

case that the Court ean find on the subject—and they are rela-

tively sparse, In addition, the Court has read on the recognized

experts in this field, Wigmore, et cetera.

It is the Court’s view that it does not take an expert to tell

a jury that a person, when under stress can make a mistake.

I think that is clearly a matter of [482] argument. I think

it would be an invasion of the province of the jury if we should

allow this type of testimony in these cases.

The ultimate extension, of course, would be that a psycholo-

gist would testify in every case where there was some type of

stress or excitement, every personal injury case where auto-

mobiles came together and testimony resulted thereafter, the

Court would have to allow, then, the additional testimony of

psychologists.

Certainly, the Court in its discretion may exclude evidence

if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the prob-

ability that its admission will ncessitate the undue eonsump-

tion of time.

In this case, I can only see that there would be excessive col-

lateral considerations, we would be immersed in a welter of

collateral matters.

* o 2 . +

The Court is going to hold that it is unreasonable to request

such testimony, that it is not necessary in this case, that the

offer of proof is inadequate, and that such testimony would not

be of assistance to the trier of facts, [483] and that they are

uniquely, as jurors, able to pool their common experience and

to resolve these very specific issues which Dr. Buckhout would

seek to testify to.

+ * e . om

Considering the costs involved, the considerable collaterak

matters, in the Court’s view it would probably take longer to

have this type of testimony and rebuttal testimony than it

would take to try the entire case. Even though it might have

some minimal probative value, the collateral considerations are

sueh that it should be excluded. That will be the order of the

Court, gentlemen, that the testimony of Dr. Robert Buckhout

will be excluded. ]

ARGUMENT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY REGARDING

TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. BOND, DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR

[518] « * * * *

Mr. MacIntyre. Excuse me, your Honor. On Thursday after-

noon at 5:00 o’clock the Court ruled that if Mr. Bond took the

stand and testified in this trial that defense counsel [519] and

Mr. Allis must furnish the government counsel a copy of any

investigative report that Mr. Bond has made.

I would like that report in my possession if he is going to take

the stand.

The Covrt. I think my ruling was that at the completion

of his testimony and as to the relevant portions of his testimony

that defense counsel would have to submit a copy of that report.

And he hasn't completed his testimony. I don’t really know

what he is going to examine on.

Mr. MacIntyre. All right. I just don’t want to delay the

trial. That is all.

The Covrr. You are prepared to submit the relevant portions

of the report itself, Mr. Allis, at the completion of his testi-

mony?

Mr. Aturs. No. I am not.

Mr. MacIntyre. Then I want the——

The Court. Just a moment.

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor. I don't want to——

The Court. Wait a minute. Give me an offer of proof, then,

as to what Mr. Bond is going to testify to.

Mr. Auuts. He is going to testify to some photographs that

he took at the bank. and he is going to testify as to—He is going

to impeach Mr. Van Gemeren, and he is going to impeach two

statements of Mr. Hoffman.

The Covrr. All right. Are you prepared to :rn over [520]

to the government at the completion of the testimony what-

ever alleged statements were made by Mr. Van Gemeren and

Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Bond as contained in his report?

Mr. Atuts. No, Iam not.

Mr. MacIntyre, Then I move to exclude his testimony.

The Covert. All right. The Court is going to exclude his testi-

mony in those areas. if vou are not willing to do so.

Mr. Aris. I would like té talk to an associate, but my posi-

tion is the stated one.

Mr. MacIntyre. Your Honor, IT don’t want him to play any

games with us now. If Mr. Bond is going to testify I want his

entire report submitted to the Court for in-camera inspection

and for the Court to allow me to see what reports there are.

I don’t want anything as to Mr. Bond testifying and then

after he has testified Mr, Allis saying. “Well, we are not going

to give you his report. Mr. MacIntyre.”

This Court has made a ruling, and I would like it complied

with.

The Court. Mr. Allis is an officer of the court, and Mr. Bond

is allowed to testify it would be necessary that those portions

of Mr. Bond's investigative report which contain the state-

ments of the impeached witness will have to be turned over to

the prosecution ; nothing else in that report.

[521] If Mr. Allis indicates to me that he refuses to do that.

then I am not going to allow the particular witness to testify

in that area. ,

Now, it is entirely up to Mr. Allis as to what portion, if any,

of Mr. Bond's testimony he wishes to elicit.

Mr. Auuis. All right. At this time, your Honor, I would like

to submit an offer of proof from Mr. Bond to make——

The Court. I think you previously have done so. He is going

to testify to some photographs that he took and he is going to

testify as to statements made to him, which you view as im-

peaching by two of the witnesses in this matter.

Mr. Atuis. Yes, your Honor. And if it is permissible with

your Honor to make sure I have not left out anything, I would

like to get my statement of what he is going to prove so I can

review that and tell your Honor if he is going to testify to

anything else.

The Court. If he testifies in any way about impeaching

statements made by either of the two witnesses, then it is the

Court's view that the government is entitled to look at his

report and only those portions of that report which contain the

alleged staiements, the alleged impeaching statements of the

witnesses,

I don’t see any necessity—-There isn’t an objection as to the

relevance, Counsel is not objecting to that.

* * * * *

[522] Mr. Autis. First of all, there are two reports in my

possession or in Mr. Bond’s possession. The reports are in the

possession of the defendant, and on behalf of them I put for-

ward his Fifth Amendment right to be free of self-incrimination

for not turning over any reports.

The Court. Just a moment. Let’s not go past that. In what

way is he going to be incriminated by his statement of a

precipient witness which is to be utilized for impeachment

purposes?

[523] Mr. Atuis. Because this report—your Honor, I under-

stand, has taken the position, as a matter of principle, that this

report may contain items which are favorable to the govern-

ment’s case,

The Court. I am not asking you to submit the entire report.

I am asking only that that portion of the report which contains

this statement and the statement only of the witnesses to be

impeached be exhibited, and after the testimony to the govern-

ment, it is simply to determine the credibility of this witness's

ability to recall.

If he has something different in his statement from what he

testifies to, I think the government is entitled to cross-examine

with that knowledge.

Mr. Au.is. Just so that I can be clear, your Honor, is your

Honor saying that I should turn over the statement in the re-

port after my own cross examination or that I should turn over

the whole report to you?

The Court. No. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

You are not obligated to turn over the whole report. I don’t

think I have ever said that at any time during these proceedings.

It would be the Court’s view that you are obligated to turn

over and you are going to have to, if necessary, and outside the

presence of the jury, cut out the relevant portions containing

the statements of the two [524] witnesses, Hoffman and the

other fellow. Those are the ones you are speaking of to impeach,

and nothing else.

Mr. Au.ts, As far as Van Gemeren’s statement, I have already

shown Mr. MacIntyre and Van Gemeren the complete state-

ment.

* * * o =

The Court. Just a moment.

Has Mr. Allis shown you Mr. Bond's investigative report

or at least the portion that contains the statement of Van

Gemeren?

Mr. MacIntyre. No.

Mr. Auuts. I showed both the witness and Mr. MacIntyre in

open court the complete statement of Mr. Van Gemeren.

Mr. MacInryre. I have had one glance at it.

The Court. Let’s put it this way. Mr. MacIntyre is appar-

ently saying he hasn’t seen it. All I am saying is if this witness

is going to testify and recite a statement made by Mr. Van

Cnn OL eer es—X_ eee

Gemeren or Mr. Hoffman, then the government is entitled to

look at that portion and that portion only of the investigative

report of Mr. Bond which contains those statements.

[525] Now, are you prepared te conform to the Court’s order

Mr. Allis, in that regard?

Mr. Autis. Your Honor, I have been previously ordered by

Mr. — At this time, your Honor, if it is agreeable with your

Honor, I would like to speak to an associate about this.

e& * * * *

[526] The Court. I can, if it would expedite this, examine

this report in camera and make a determination. I don’t think

it is necessary to do so.

We have had the statement of this witness. If you want to

furnish it to me prior to his testimony, I could read it while he

is testifying, and we can get the matter moving along. Is that

satisfactory with you, Mr. Allis?

Mr. Atuis. My position at this time, your Honor, Rule 16 is

that the other discovery consents in the Federal Court. that the

Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments protect the defendant in

whose possession the reports are from turning them over for

any reason.

The Court. We are not talking about pretrial discovery. This

is post testimony discovery. It has been carefully considered by

the Court, and I am narrowing my ruling to the very specific

area.

If you are not willing to conform to the Court's ruling, Mr.

Allis, please so state and the Court will then instruct you not

to inquire in the area of these allegedly [527] impeaching

statements.

Mr. Auuis. All right. I am not willing to conform, your Honor.

The Covrt. You may proceed with your direct examination

in other areas, then.

Mr. Auuis. If it is permissible with your Honor, I would like

to file at this time an offer of proof for testimony of John Bond

and opposition to the order compelling that testimony to——

The Covrt. Let me see your offer of proof.

[Whereupon Mr. Allis hands a document to the Court.]

{528] The Court. All right. The Court will accept for filing

the offer of proof for testimony of John Bond.

Apparently, then, you are offering the testimony of John

Bond only to impeach the one witness Hoffman, I am gathering,

by this offer of proof.

Mr. Atiis. Your Honor, the reason that that offer of proof is

made is because I am—Or, in addition, I want to impeach the

testimony of Van Gemeren. Now, that is not included in that

one, because I have already shown the whole statement——

The Covert. If you want an appellate court to be able to

review what you are trying to do, you had better state an offer

of proof as to what he is going to do so far as the impeachment

of Van Gemeren.

Mr. Auuts. All right. My offer of proof is that John Bond

would testify that Van Gemeren told him that as far as the

man at the surveillance camera is concerned, he oniy saw the

back of that man.

The Covrr. All right. The Court will also aceept the Opposi-

tion to Order Compelling Defendant to Provide Governinent

with Defense Memorandum of Witness Interview.

* * * oe *

[543] Mr. Atuis. Your Honor, as an amendment I would like

to add this to the offer of proof of the testimony of John Bond.

because I see that it was left out of the typed copy. Instead of

being in the typed copy, Number B. it should be that he told—

May I get my folder to make it absolutely correct?

The Court. Yes.

Mr. Auuis. It should be that he—as he recalls, the man who

was standing at the teller’s cage directly across from him, was

the one whom he could see more clearly and would be able to

identify. This is what Mr. Bond would testify that Mr. Hoff-

man told him.

The Court. You are reading from what? For the record, is

that Mr. Bond’s report that you are reading from?

Mr. Auuis. Yes.

Mr. MacIntyre. Yes.

The Court. All right.

[544] Mr. MacIntyre. And I want a copy of the report.

Mr. Aturs. Your Honor, I would also like to, for the record,

make an objection to the procedure. I fee] that I should be

permitted to ask Mr. Bond the question, and then after he has

answered, if there is any motion to strike that, that is when the

objection of Mr. MacIntyre should be handled.

I object to being precluded from asking the question of Mr.

Bond.

The Court. I am not precluding you from asking the ques-

tion. You are only precluded from asking the question by in-

dicating in advance that you are going to refuse to comply with

the Court's direction. I see no distinction between not allowing

the witness to testify at this time or being required to strike

the testimony at a subsequent date.

As a matter of fact, it would appear to me to be much more

prejudicial to your client to have to strike this testimony than

to have it not introduced. Certainly, you couldn't argue it be-

cause it is stricken.

* * * * *

The Covrr. For the record, your offer of proof, does it include

the fact that Mr. Bond did in this particular case, with these

two witnesses, prepare notes during the time he [545] made

his interview with these witnesses and then subsequently re-

dueed them to a written report; is that correct, Mr. Allis? |

Mr. Atuis. That is correct. It is not in the offer of proof but

that is what he did.

The Covrr. And that, of course, is what we have been talking

about when we were talking about a portion of the report

being turned over to the government after the completion of

Mr. Bond's testimony, I assume.

Mr. MacInryre. That is right. And he has refused to comply

with it.

Mr. Aus. As an officer of the court, when your Honor asked

me this morning what my intention was, I felt duty bound to

tell your Honor what my intention was with regard to Mr.

Bond's statement. I still object to not—if your Honor, given

that intention, which I feel duty bound to tell your Honor,

because your Honor has asked me what my intention is, if

your Honor wants me—I don’t know how to phrase this.

I felt duty bound to tell you what I was going to do. At the

saine tine. I do object to not being able to ask, to not being

permitted to ask him the question, because I believe that is a

proper procedure,

The Courr. I have already explained to you my response to

that. I would be required to strike the testimony. In the eyes

of the law stricken testimony éannot be considered by the jury,

cannot be utilized by them in reaching their [546] determina-

tion.

I see absolutely no difference between your asking the ques-

tion and then, for example, the court prohibiting an answer,

or your asking the question, an answer being given, and your

failing to comply with the Court’s order, in which case the

testimony will be stricken.

Mr. Auuts. Do I understand your Honor is ordering me not

to ask the question?

The Court. No, I am not ordering you not to ask the ques-

tion. I am allowing you to ask the question so long as you

comply with the Court’s direction that at the conclusion of

this witness's testimony you will turn over that small portion

of the report which relates to the two statements.

I have also offered the Court's services to examine this report

in camera and to indicate what portions of the report should be

excised for deliverance to the government. You have refused

that.

Therefore, I have prohibited you from asking the questions

in the area concerned.

* a _ _ e

CROSS EXAMINATION OF SUSAN ARLENE MATHIS

{567 | By Mr. MacIntyre:

Q. How old are you, Miss Mathis?

A. Nineteen.

Q. Whom were you working for on February 6th?

A. Theodore Bell.

Q. And that was as a nude dancer, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Mr. Auuts. Objection, your Honor.

Mr. MacInrtvre. Pardon me.

Q. Were you a nude dancer on February 6th?

Mr. Aus. Objection, your Honor.

The Court. Do you wish to approach the bench, Mr. Allis?

Mr. Auuts. No, your Honor.

The Court. The objection is overruled.

[568] By Mr. MacIntyre:

Q. Were you dancing as a nude dancer on February 6th?

A. Yes.

CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

By Mr. MacIntyre:

[674] * * * * *

bank. It is awful easy—photographs can be confusing, as most

of you know, in dealing with them, in taking pictures of your

families, or when traveling. You can take a photograph to

show about anything you want to.

What really happened, I think what really let the cat out

of the bag in this case is that Mr. Bond went to this bank about

9:00 o’clock in the morning when the shadows were down and

there was no lighting, and he stood right underneath the door-

way where Mr. Nobles was standing, and he had a picture of

him taken.

This is picture Number 3. And, of course, you can’t even

make out what race the person is or anything in this picture.

And he wants you ladies and gentlemen to believe that at about

ten minutes to nine or ten after nine [675] this is the way Mr.

Hoffman got his look at Mr. Nobles.

Mr. Auuis. Objection, your Honor, here is no testimony

and no intent to show anything of the kind.

Mr. MacInryre. I will leave that to you to decide whether

or not there is, ladies and gentlemen.

The Court. Counsel can argue whatever inferences they feel

are reasonable under the circumstances.

Mr. MacIntyre. You take these pictures that Mr. Bond is

trying to make you believe of what the view looked like, and

you compare with the lighting and the surveillance pictures,

and I will let you be the judges of who is trying to pull the

wool over your eyes.

| 676] * * * & *

lobby. The interesting thing about Mr. Hoffman’s testimony

* * ss * *

He said about one-third oi his time was focused on the

defendant Robert Nobles, right ere, and on this person right

here, directly across from him, wo is now a fugitive. He said

that the one thing that really drew his attemmon to the defend-

he grabbed this woman. Then -\e sbeeqwent*y ran out of the

bank. This is an event which really stuck in his mind, as it

would in any one of your minds.

o * 7 * *

his testimony, naturally, but at the lineup which he attended,

which was on February 23rd, that is 16 days after the robbery,

[677] at this lineup all of the defendants, the people in the

lineup—there was only the defendant Robert Nobles in that

particular lineup, all of the

Mr. Aus. Objection, your Honor. There was no lineup in the

month of February.

Mr. MacIntyre. You will recall the date when you———

The Court. Ladies and gentlemen

Mr. Auuts. I strongly object to that. The testimony was the

lineup was two days after March 28th.

The Court. Ladies and gentlemen, your recollection of when

this particular lineup occurred will control in this matter.

cm * * * *

(679] This is where Mr. Hoffman was standing. This is where

the teller Peter Van Gemeren was standing, looking at it. So I

submit to you that these photographs are distorted and they are

trying to show you ladies and gentlemen something that didn’t

really occur at the time of the robbery.

In fact, they were taken at 9:00 o’clock in the morning in-

stead of at 11:20, most of them.

[681 ] * * * * *

You ean consider the fact that he denied his identity at the

time of his arrest and was hiding out from the FBI also. Thank

you.

Mr. Aus. Objection, your Honor. There is no testimony

about hiding out from the FBI. I strongly object to that.

The Court. All right. The jury’s recollection, as previously

indicated, will controi in this matter.

7 * * * o

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

By Mr. MacIntyre:

[737] * * . + *

You know, ladies and gentlemen, Darrell MacIntyre didn’t

bring this particular indictment. This indictment was brought

by the Grand Jury of the Central District of California, and

you will have a copy with you. Of course, I have a personal

interest in this case, that interest being to see that justice is

done, and to see that witnesses come in this courtroom and

testify under oath as to the truth of what happened.

We can all sit here and jump on Mr. Hoffman, and we can

jump on Mr. Van Gemeren all we want to, but we have to ask

ourselves one question. What is a good identification witness?

That is a difficult question. What is a good soldier? Audie Mur-

phy was just a plain, common man, and yet in the World War

he won the Medal of Honor. He didn’t want to do what he had

to do, but he did it. He probably was an outstanding soldier.

What did Gary Hoffman do in this case? Mr. [738] Hofi-

man is just a citizen, just a person like any one of you. He was

in the bank, and you have the surveillance pictures with you.

He looked at Robert Nobles, he came into this courtroom, under

oath, in front of Almighty God, and he said, “That’s the man

that was standing underneath that camera.”’ He has no motive

to lie.

When I prepare these cases with the help of the FBI, I don’t

bring puppets into this courtroom. I don’t have any control

over their thinking. They are seeing and they are speaking.

They testify under oath.

If that wasn’t the man that he saw under that camera, he

would have said it wasn’t. It is just as simple. They are people

trying to tell the truth.

If you want to believe that 19-year-old nude dancer who

says that she was with Robert Nobles on that date, then you

believe her. Then you believe her. She has an interest in this

case. She has been sitting in this courtroom all week. Of course

she has an interest.

She was shacking up with Robert Nobles at the time. That is

as good an interest as there is.

Mr. Hoffman stood right here in this public lobby, and he

saw Robert Nobles. I don’t care how many investigators come

in this courtroom that don’t even have good enough eyesight

that they can’t even look at a photograph from 12 inches and

tell you what time it is.

[739] Then he says, “I stood all over that bank, and this is

what you can see.” Well, my God, he can’t even see 12 inches

without his glasses, and he doesn’t have his glasses on in these

pictures.

Mr. Auuis. Objection, your Honor. He never testified as to

what he could or could not see.

The Court. All right. Let’s proceed, Mr. MacIntyre.

Mr. MacIntyre. You know, ladies and gentlemen, when the

shoes gets tight the foot starts to squirm, and we’ve got sume

squirming feet over here.

[740] . * * * *

We don't have to bring the wardrobe out of that apartment

in here. There is no need to, and that is why we don’t do it.

We brought the witnesses in here. The uncontradicted testi-

mony is that Robert Nobles was underneath that surveillance

camera. The uncontradicted testimony.

* +. * * —

You can look at this photo spread. which counsel has so neatly

gone through, and ask yourself, what is a fair photo spread?

I submit to you this photo spread [741] is very fair to the

defendant Robert Nobles.

The FBI can’t help it if when they put a picture in there it

happens to say, “Pasadena, Califurnia Police Department,”

or some other area. They don’t go out and just arrest people to

put them in the photo spreads. They try to pick out an indi-

vidual who has similar facial characteristics, because they are

just as interested as any one of you or I am in making sure

that the right man is convicted. And that is what they did in

this case.

[742] — a * * *

What difference does it make? Mr. Hoffman got a panoramic

view of Robert Nobles right there underneath that camera,

and I submit to you he would not, under oath, say that that is

the man if he wasn’t sure in his mind that it was. No question

about it,

+ +. 7 * .

[744] And you know when they really jump on me, they have

really come down the ladder. When you can’t talk about the

facts and you ean't talk about the law. and you have got to

jump on some young FBI agent, and that doesn’t work, when

vou have got to go after the prosecutor, you are really hurting

in this ease, really hurting, and you better believe Mr. Brown,

Mr. Swain and Mr. Nobles are hurting from the evidence pre-

sented in this trial.

Why didn’t we bring everybody in the bank to this court-

room? We don’t have to bring everybody in that bank to this

courtroom. We brought intelligent, ordinary people; possibly

we could have brought ten more. Possibly they would have

testified to the same thing. Who knows?

* * * om 7

[745] In regard to what Mr. Bond did or did not do in this

case, there has been a little attempt in this ease to introduce

some racial remarks of some nature in regard to Mr. Hoffman’s

testimony. Mr. Bond never testified in the trial as to anything

Mr. Hoffman did or did not say to him.

Mr. Hoffman, you heard his testimony, and I submit to you

he denied the questions, said, “No,” to the questions that were

asked by Mr. Allis. If he testified any differently Mr. Bond

would have testified in this courtroom to you as to what the

inconsistencies were, and Mr. Bond did not so testify. You

heard his testimony.

He went out there at 10 minutes to nine in the morning and

is trying to pull the wool over your eyes by telling you that

these are the lighting conditions in the bank in these photo-

graphs. That is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard

in my life. You look at them and you compare these photo-

graphs with these surveillance pictures which were taken right

on the button at the time this robbery happened. Mr. Swain

and Mr. Brown lived together in an apartment.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you run with the hounds you can’t

complain when you wake up with the fleas.

* * * * *

[747] All the FBI has done in this ease, ladies and gentlemen,

is to investigate it properly to bring you the people that they

felt were necessary witnesses. And they have testified under

oath as to the truth in this case. To attack the FBI I think is

just spitting in the wind, because these young men have nothing

to do but to honestly and intelligently investigate these cases

and bring you the witnesses.

The FBI has done their job in this case. We ask you to do

your job.

[Case No. 12113-Crim (MML), U.S.A. vs. Tommie Brown,

et al.. Defendant’s Exhibit G, Date April 18, 1973, iden., date

| evid. Clerk, U.S. District Court, Central

District of California.

By ; . Deputy Clerk.]

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT G, SUPPLEMENTAL OFFER OF PROOF,

PAGES 1-7

United States District Court, Central District of California

No. 12113-MML-CD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF

Roeert Lee NOBLES, DEFENDANT

SUPPLEMENTAL OFFER OF PROOF

EXPERIMENTAL AND SociAL PsycHoLocists’ THEORIES

Doctor Buckhout will testify to the theory of recognition and

identification which is a recognized theory among experimental

and social psychologists. He will testify that, based on scientific

experiments, some of which he has conducted himself, there

are a number of objective factors, some of them unconscious,

which affect the reliability of eyewitness identification

testimony.

The following table, extracted from a paper by Doctor Buck-

hout, summarizes 16 sources of unreliability in eyewitness testi-

mony. backed up by specific research, most of which is beyond

the ken of the average laymen and/or juror.

TABLE I

A. The Original Situation

1. Insignificance of Events

2. Shortness of Period of Observation

3. Less than ideal observation conditions

B. The Observer

4. Stress

5. Physical Condition of the Observer

6. Prior Conditioning and Experience

(42)

7. Personal Biases

8. Needs and Motives—Seeing what we want to see

9. Desire to be a Part of History

C. Testing for Identification

10. Length of Time From Event to Test

11. Filling in Details Which Weren’t There

12. Unfair Test Construction

13. Suggestions in the Test Situation

14. Conformity

15. Relation to Authority Figures

16. Passing on a Theory: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Basis ror HyPoTHETICAL QUESTIONS

I have related to Doctor Buckhout that one witness (Mr.

Van Gemeran) testified that he worked as a teller at the bank

in question, that the robbery occurred at about 11:30 a.m.. that

it lasted from 5-7 minutes, that the witness was working at the

fourth teller desk from the door, that he was erdered to back up.

that he saw defendant Brown leap over the counter go down

to the teller’s line, jump over the counter again and leave.

Defendant Brown was wearing the same glasses he had on in

court. Brown reportedly was wearing a hat and coat which

are in evidence. The witness testified that defendant Brown was

standing two feet away from him at one point, that he noticed

Brown for about four minutes, that he noticed Brown “the

most,” that he noticed one of the other robbers, (not Defend-

ant Robert Nobles) who was standing from 4—10 feet from him

for approximately one minute. The witness testified that the

third robber, (not defendant Robert Nobles) was standing

approximately fifteen feet away, while defendant Nobles was

about twenty feet from him under the surveillance cameras.

The witness does not recall whether defendant Nobles was

wearing a hat or a jacket. He saw defendant Nobles from the

back and side. Defendant Nobles’ back was to the witness most

of the time. The witness saw a side view for one-half minute:

he testified that he was excited and afraid and that this was his

first robbery of any kind. The first time the witness saw defend-

ant Nobles since the robbery was in Court. Defendant was in

the front row with the other defendants, he testified that he

knew that the defendant was a defendant, and that he was

seated behind the defendant and several sections to the side

prior to testifying.

Expert OPINION

Doctor Buckhout is qualified to relate the facts presented

in the hypothetical to his training and research background

and render his opinion as to whether the ordinary human

observer would be an unreliable eyewitness under the cireum-

stances described. Based on the facts presented, Doctor Buck-

hout will testify that in his opinion, the average human observer

would be unreliable. In support of this opinion Doctor Buck-

hout will testify that the facts described an accumulation of

sources of unreliability from Table I including:

Shortness of Period of Observation

Stress

Prior Conditioning and Experience (no experience with

events by witness)

Length of time from Event to Test.

Unfair Test Construction

Suggestion in the Test Situation

The accumulation of these factors support his opinion that the

testimony described is unreliable. Further, in line with the

theory of the eyewitness, the facts suggest that the witness was

dividing his attention to several events. which usually results

in a reduction of efficiency.

Basis For Seconp HypoTrHeETICAL

I have related to Doctor Buckhout the following facts con-

cerning the testimony of witness Gary Hoffman: Mr. Hoffman

was a visitor in the bank, he was standing in the platform area

with his back to the counter during most of the robbery. The

robbery reportedly lasted 5-8 minutes. The witness testified

that this was the first robbery he had ever been in, that he was

afraid, excited, and breathing more heavily than normal, that

he noticed the man behind the teller’s counter working, that

he saw him jump over the counter to the lobby. and that his

eves followed him out the front door. He reportedly knew one

of the robbers was to his right but did not focus on him. The

witness testified that the robber passed within four to five feet

of him as he was leaving and gave him a full view, that the rob-

ber in the front of the bank toward the teller’s area was at one

time within a few feet of him. The witness’ attention was

focused on defendant Nobles for approximately two to three

minutes. The witness recalls only that defendant Nobles had

dark clothing and dark hat. The witness testified that Defen(-

ant Nobles had a medium complexion, was young in facial

features, had a Negroid nose—slightly larger than average—

Negroid lips, roundish as opposed to a long face. The witness

did not recall a mustache, goatee, or heavy five o'clock shadow.

The witness cannot recall sideburns. He recalls seeing his hat

was pulled low, no circles under the defendant's eyes, that the

eyes did not droop, and that he could not see the color in defend-

ant Nobles’ eyes. The witness testified that defendant Nobles

wore no glasses, had no double chin, was somewhat stocky in

build. The witness was shown a photo-spread on Mareh 28. snd

picked out defendant Nobles saying that in his opinion this

could very well be the bandit. The witness picked defendant

Nobles out of the line-up two days later, and identified defend-

ant Nobles in court on April .2, 1973. At the time of the photo-

spread the witness wanted to be accurate, hoped it would not

be a waste of time, and hoped he would be able to pick out the

robber. At the time of the robbery he was concerned with the

safety of other people in the bank.

Expert Opinion No. 2

Based on the facets presented in the hypothetical. Doctor

Buckhout will testify that the facts indicate the presence of

the following sources of eyewitness reliability selected from

Table I. .

Shortness of Period of Observation

Stress

Prior Conditioning and Experience

Personal Biases

Unfair Testing

Suggestions in Test Situation

On the basis of che accumulation of the above factors. Doctor

Buckhout wili testify that in his opinion, the eyewitness testi-

mony is unreliable.

Doctor Buckhout, as an expert on the testing of evewitness

identification, will be shown the photographs used in the photo-

spread on which the identification of defendant Nobles was

made. When asked if such a photo-spread is a “fair test,”” Doctor

Buckhout will testify that in his opinion, it is not. He will point

out specific deficiencies in the photo-spread including:

1. The photo of the defendant stands out as unique item.

2. Four out of six photos show a person with a civilian

sport shirt while defendant's picture and one other

do not. ,

3. Three of the six photos show very dark skinned per-

sons—which logically excludes their consideration by

a witness who is looking for a light-skinned black

male.

4. Defendant Nobles’ picture is one of two photos which

show a clean-shaven face. Four other photos show

hair—another biasing factor leaning toward the

defendant.

The net effect of these errors in the photo-spread is, in Doctor

Buckhout’s opinion, to render the photo-spread test unfair,

since it leads the witness to exclude from consideration 4-5 of

the photos of persons other than the defendant. Instead of it

being a test of 1 out of 6, it is a far easier test of 1 out of 2.

If a witness were influenced by the uniqueness of the defendant

Noble's photo, it would not be a test at all.

Doctor Buckhout will be asked his opinion of the sequence of

test: photo-spread, line-up and incourt identification—an area

of expertise clearly beyond that of the average juror and/or

layman. Doctor Buckhout will testify that in his opinion, the

line-up identification is clearly unreliable because the witness

has effectively been coached on the correct answer by having

previously picked out a photo of defendant Nobles. Such a .

lineup is an unfair test in Doctor Buckhout’s opinion.

Further, Doctor Buckhout will testify that the same weak-

ness affected the in-court identification. Doctor Buckhout will

testify that the in-court identification test was unfair because

Mr. Nobles was clearly identifiable as a defendant. In his

opinion, in-court identifications are generally unreliable (even

though formally necessary) because of prior knowledge and the

suggestiveness of the defendant's seating position in court.

Doctor Buckhout will also testify that the description given by

witness Hoffman that the nose of the robber was “Negroid,”

indicates that such a witness relies on such sterotype features

ee es —

+ ee

aoe

in remembering Black people and that this can effect the reli-

ability of the identification. Recent research shows that white

people are less reliable in identification of Black people.

Respectfully submitted,

JoHn K. Van DeKamp,

Federal Public Defender.

By Nicholas R. Allis,

Nicuouas R. ALLIs,

Deputy Federal Public Defender.

Attorneys for Defendant,

Ropert Lee NosBLes.

Dated: April 17, 1973.

| Received June 27, 10:27 a.m. 1973, U.S. Marshal Service, Los

Angeles, California ]

United States District Court for the Central District of

California

No. 12113—Criminal

UnItep STatTes or AMERICA

Ropert Lee NoBLes

Judgment and Commitment (Rec. 2-68)

On this 2lst day of May, 1973 came the attorney for the

government and the defendant appeared in person and with his

appointed counsel, Nicholas Allis, Deputy Federal Public

Defender.

It is adjudged that the defendant upon his plea of Not Guilty

and a Verdict of Guilty has been convicted of the Offense of

Robbery of a National Bank and use of a Dangerous Weapon. in

violation of Title 18 United States Code, section 2113(a)(d)

as charged in the Indictment filed the 5th day of March, 1973.

and the court having asked the defendant whether he has any-

thing to say why judgment should not be pronounced, and no

sufficient cause to the contrary being shown or appearing to the

Court.

It is adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged and

convicted.

It is adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed to the

custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representa-

tive for imprisonment for a period of twenty-five (25) vears.

It is adjudged that the defendant shall become eligible for

parole under Title 18 United States Code, section 4208(a)(2),

at such time as the Board of Parole may determine.

It is ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of this

judgment and commitment to the United States Marshal or

(48)

other qualified officer and that the copy serve as the commit-

ment of the defendant.

Matcotm M. Lvcas,

United States District Judge.

Filed: May 21, 1973, Edward M. Kritzman, Clerk, by Duane

K. Hostetter, Deputy Clerk.

CERTIFICATE

I hereby attest and certify this date that the foregoing docu-

ment is a full and correct copy of the original on file in my office,

and in my legal custody.

Epwarp M. KrirzMan, Clerk,

United States District Court.

Deputy Clerk.

Dated June 1, 1973.

[ Filed, June 27, 1973, Clerk, U.S. District Court, Central

District of California By Deputy. ]

RETURN

I have executed the within Judgment and Commitment as

follows:

Defendant delivered on to

Defendant noted notice of appeal on

Defendant released on

Defendant’s appeal determined on

Defendant delivered on June 22, 1973, to USP—MeNeil

Isl. at Steilacoom, Wash., the institution designated by

the Attorney General, with a certified copy of the within

Judgment and Commitment.

Everett R. LANGForpD,

United States Marshal,

District of Oregon.

Deputy.

Dated June 22, 1973.

(50)

ae ate mee eee ew ee te

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 74-634

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER

Rosert Lee Noses

Order Allowing Certiorari. Filed January 20, 1975.

The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is granted.

’ Mr. J ustice Douglas took no part in the consideration or deci-

sion of this petition.

(51)

US, GOVERNMEMT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.