Summary of Opinion: Tyree v. United States, No. 22200 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 1965)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the conviction of James Durham Tyree for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(b). The opinion is a per curiam decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dated October 11, 1965. Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal. He raised two grounds of error on appeal: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to submit the issue of his guilt to the jury, and (2) that he was denied constitutional rights by being required to appear in a police lineup and to take certain affirmative action in the lineup to permit a prospective witness to test her memory. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, while noting that the lineup contention was not properly preserved in the trial court and therefore was not available on the record before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evidence was insufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the issue of appellant's guilt of the offenses charged.
Whether appellant was denied constitutional rights by being required to appear in a police lineup and to take certain affirmative action while in the lineup (and whether the principle announced in Escobedo v. State of Illinois is applicable to that contention).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The evidence was insufficient to warrant submission of the guilt issue to the jury.
The appellant was denied constitutional rights by being required to appear in a police lineup and to take certain affirmative action while in the lineup, which implicates the principle announced by the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellee's (government's) arguments in opposition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977	The opinion refers to the "principle announced by the Supreme Court in Escobedo" in connection with appellant's contention regarding the police lineup.	The Court held the Escobedo-based contention was not available on the record because the point was not made at any stage of the trial court proceedings and no facts were developed to permit determination of whether the Escobedo principle is applicable.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the two grounds appellant presented.

On the insufficiency-of-evidence claim, the Court found that the record contained a positive identification by one of the bank's employees. The Court concluded that this identification was adequate to warrant submission to the jury and to support a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the lineup/constitutional-rights claim, the Court explained that the issue was not preserved for appellate review because the appellant did not raise the point at any stage of the trial court proceedings. As a result, no facts were developed that would allow the Court to determine whether the principle announced in Escobedo v. State of Illinois applies to the circumstances alleged. Because the record lacked the necessary factual development, the Court declined to resolve the constitutional question on appeal.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment but expressly left open the appellant's right to present his lineup contentions through whatever means may be available to him.

Holding and Implications

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Holding: The Court affirmed the conviction. The insufficiency argument was rejected because of a positive eyewitness identification sufficient for the jury. The claimed constitutional violation arising from the police lineup was deemed not reviewable on this record because it was not raised in the trial court and no facts were developed to permit appellate review.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the appellant's conviction is upheld. The Court's decision preserves the appellant's right to pursue his lineup-related contentions by other available means (the judgment is affirmed "without prejudice" to that right). The opinion does not announce or establish any new legal precedent beyond its application to the facts and record deficiencies in this case.

The Court also noted its appreciation to counsel for his volunteer services.

Show full summary ...

James Durham TYREE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction of the appellant of the offense of bank robbery in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(b).

Appellant asserts only two grounds for his appeal. The first, that the evidence was insufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the issue of appellant's guilt of the offenses charged, cannot be supported on the record before us. There was a positive identification by one of the employees of the bank which is adequate to warrant the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant.

The second ground of appeal, that appellant was denied constitutional rights by reason of being required to appear in a police lineup and to take certain affirmative action while in the lineup to permit the prospective witness to test her memory concerning the identity of the appellant, is not available on this record. This point was not made at any stage of the proceedings in the trial court. No facts have been developed, therefore, which would permit this Court to determine whether the principle announced by the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, is applicable.

The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to present his contentions touching upon his being required to appear in the police lineup by such means as may be available to him.

The Court expresses its appreciation to counsel for his services as a volunteer.

TYREE v. UNITED STATES