Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie James THREATT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-07-07
Citations: 445 F.2d 625
Docket Number: No. 31023
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie James THREATT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 445
Pages: 625–625

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie James THREATT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31023
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 7, 1971.
Lawrence B. Sheffield, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Charlie J. Threatt, pro se.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., L. Scott Atkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 499.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The single issue in this appeal from a bank robbery conviction is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence concerning a witness' identification of defendant in a lineup and subsequently in court. There was no error. The trial judge followed the procedures which in United States v. Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir.1970), we suggested district judges employ in applying the principles of Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Also a suggestion of Simmons itself was followed — i.e., that not all the eyewitnesses view the photographs prior to lineup. Here there were two eyewitnesses, only one viewed the photographs, they observed the lineup separately, and each identified defendant in the lineup.
We have examined the photographs, and we do not agree with the contention of defendant that the pictures are, in and of themselves, so impermissibly suggestive of defendant that the trial court was in error.
Affirmed.