Opinion ID: 379476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Decoster's Participation in the Events of the Robbery

Text: 191 There is considerable doubt about what story Decoster was telling when he was first arrested. The dissent states: Decoster claimed that he was not with (his co-defendants). Dissent n.110. Yet in his letter to Judge Waddy filed November 13, 1970, Decoster wrote: I can prove that I am only guilty of assault by self defence. See dissent n.22. And in his letter to his counsel, which Decoster testified he mailed between May and November, 1970, he admitted his participation in the events of the robbery. Dissent page --- of 199 U.S.App.D.C., page 273 of 624 F.2d. These letters obviously contradict the statements of the dissent at n.110 because if Decoster were guilty of assault by self defence he would have had to be in Crump's presence when he assaulted him in self defence. So to the extent that the dissent relies on any claim by Decoster that he was not with the co-defendants it is of questionable validity.