Nance v. US, 299 F.2d 122, 112 U.S.App.D.C.

38 (1962) Procedural History: Defendant, Joseph Nance, was convicted of robbery in the District Court of Washington, D.C. He appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Statement of Facts: The Roosevelt Hotel in Washington, D.C., was robbed on the morning of December 7, 1960. The robber was wearing a white handkerchief on his face, a reddish brown suede jacket, and dark trousers. The night auditor, a bellboy, and a house detective all identified Defendant as the robber, and the detective, who had seen the robbers face after he had taken off the handkerchief, picked Defendant out of a line-up. Additionally, another witness testified that she had heard Defendant admit to committing the robbery. Defendant chose to represent himself, and at the preliminary hearing asked the night auditor, How do you know it was me, when I had a handkerchief over my face? The prosecution used this question in trial as an admission by Defendant. Issue: (1) Were certain words made by Defendant during his cross-examination of the prosecutions witness properly admitted as evidence of his guilt? (2) Did the District Court err in not ordering a verdict of acquittal? Answer: (1) Yes. As the phrasing of the question was entirely voluntary, there is no reason to exclude it. (2) No. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to make the decision. Reasoning: (1) Before the preliminary hearing, the United States Commissioner explained to Defendant his rights, including a right to ask questions during the hearing. Defendant chose to represent himself and cross-examine the prosecutors witnesses. Because his phrasing of the questions during the hearing was entirely voluntary, he could not claim that there was an error in the court proceedings. The reasoning of the court is that when a non-lawyer defendant chooses to represent himself, his lack of expertise is immaterial, and he cannot claim it as a mitigating factor for any mistakes he may make. Therefore, the question was properly admitted. (2) The evidence presented by the prosecution included three witnesses to the crime, one of whom saw the robber without his mask off and picked Defendant out of a line-up, and

another witness who stated that she had heard Defendant admit to the crime. The court, therefore, held that even without the admitted question from the preliminary hearing, there was more than enough evidence for the jury to make a decision. Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. Dissent: While the dissent to the Court of Appeals decision agreed that there was more than enough evidence to convict Defendant, it disagreed on whether the question was a proper admission. Because it was not a proper admission, it was impossible to tell what the jury would have decided if the question, which was highly prejudicial, had been excluded during the trial. Therefore, the dissent argued the case should have been retried.