What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
Gloria J. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Margaret M. WATKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 18124, 18125.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 11, 1964.
Decided April 16, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing en Banc Denied June 19, 1964.
Certiorari Denied Dec. 7, 1964.
See 85 S.Ct. 336.
Mr. M. Michael Cramer (appointed by the District Court), Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thomas Sisk (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant in No. 18124, argued for both appellants.
Miss Ruth E. Hankins (appointed by the District Court), Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant in No. 18125.
Mr. Anthony A. Lapham, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Frank Q. Nebe-ker and Daniel Reznéck, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Washington and McGowan, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants (two women) met the complainant (a man) in a bar and had drinks with him. When he left they followed him, seized him, and took a roll of bills from his pocket. A police officer happened to witness the later stages of the affair and arrested them on the spot. They were indicted for robbery and convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery.
In defense appellants say they had given the complainant a dollar with which to buy whiskey and were seeking to recover their money. They submitted that version to the jury, but as the verdict indicates, that body declined to accept it.
Appellants also present a point under the so-called Jeneks statute. Inquiry was made into the matter at the trial. It was established that the officer had made an original pencil' draft of a report, that the draft had been given to a stenographer at police headquarters who made a typewritten version of it, and that the officer signed it. The typed report was produced at the trial and used to impeach the officer’s testimony as to the events he witnessed. As to the pencil draft the officer said: “ * * * it went in the trash after it was — * * * It. probably went in the trash after the clerk typed it.” All who heard this testimony appear to have taken it at face value as establishing that the notes had been destroyed in the usual course of business. The defense in particular seized upon the fact of the destruction of the notes, and urged upon the court that that fact alone necessitated the striking of the officer’s testimony. It did not suggest to the court, by motion or otherwise, that a hearing be held to inquire into either the fact or the circumstances of the destruction.
Appellants now say the trial judge should, upon his own initiative, have held a hearing to determine whether the original pencil draft of the policeman’s report had been destroyed. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Campbell v. United States, the inquiry conducted by the judge upon such a matter is not an adversary proceeding controlled by rules as to burden of proof or persuasion, but is simply a proceeding necessary to aid the judge to discharge the responsibility laid upon him to enforce the statute. The trial judge in the case at bar, having the officer before him and hearing his testimony, was satisfied there was no cause for a hearing. The record indicates that the defense was similarly satisfied. The only objective of a hearing would have been to determine whether the throwing of the pencil notes into the trash had been in bad faith or not in normal course. No suggestion to that effect was made at the time. We cannot say the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to initiate an inquiry which no one who heard the officer’s testimony thought necessary.
As to the argument that the destruction of the pencil notes after they had been typed and the typed copy signed made the officer’s testimony inadmissible, Killian is to the contrary.
Affirmed.
. 71 Stat. 595 (1957), 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
. In his interrogation of the officer, defense counsel himself referred to the handwritten statement as “The one in the trash.”
. 365 U.S. 85, 95, 81 S.Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428 (1961).
. Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 82 S.Ct. 302, 7 L.Ed.2d 256 (1961).

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 53