Court Opinion

ID: 9462221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:35:11.809058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:28.322047
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur on the basis of Division I of the majority opinion, the courtroom identification. The issue is close.
I find it unnecessary to reach issues II and III. However, I think this case is clearly distinguishable from United States v. Achtenberg, 459 F.2d 91, 98-99 (8th Cir. 1972), which is cited in Division II of the majority opinion. Moreover, we have held that “[t]he government is free to comment upon the defense’s failure to call any witness to refute or contradict the government’s case . . . ” United States v. Thompson, 490 F.2d 1218, 1221 (8th Cir. 1974). See United States v. Hagar, 505 F.2d 737, 740 (8th Cir. 1974).
I also find it doubtful whether issue II was properly raised in the trial court.