Court Opinion

ID: 9459980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:36:54.578582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:24.996182
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
Appellant’s reasons for the repudiation of his exceptionally detailed confession are so patently unbelievable that the Murdock guidelines should not apply. Certainly, the trial judge had a right to comment on the credibility of appellant’s testimony in connection with the repudiation and to tell the jury that he did not believe him. Here, appellant either did or did not rob the bank. His confession contained all of the essential elements of the crime of bank robbery. In this type of a case, as distinguished from the tax offense presented in Mur-dock, the issue of willfulness is not involved. It is my firm conviction that a federal judge, in commenting on the evidence, should have at least as much authority as the state judge. See Davis v. Craven, supra and Gonsior v. Craven, supra. I would affirm.