HEWITT V. UNITED STATES, 110 F.2D 1

HEWITT v. UNITED STATES, 110 F.2d 1

HEWITT v. UNITED STATES, 110 F.2d 1

Facts & Issues in the Case

The most common way in which evidence is presented in court is through oral testimony. Oral testimony occurs when a witness swears to tell the truth or be subject to the penalty of perjury, and then relates his or her experiences (Atkins, 2001). In this case Paul M. Hewitt was convicted of having forcibly robbed a state bank, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the United States, and of having, while committing the robbery, put the lives of persons in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, and he appeals(Barr, 2002).

Some facts are proven with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is "evidence that may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts, which have been proven." A lawyer may support an eyewitness account with evidence about the circumstances of the situation, which helps the judge or jury logically deduce or reasonably infer facts that cannot be proven directly (Atkins, 2001). Fingerprints are a perfect example of circumstantial evidence (Chaiken, 2004). There may be no eyewitness to place an alleged burglar at the scene of a crime, but if the defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene, it can be inferred that he or she was there (Lurigio, 2000). In this case the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged. Two of Hewitt's co-defendants, Karatasos and Newell, were witnesses against him. Their testimony was to the effect that, while Hewitt was not personally present when the robbery was committed, he had suggested, planned and financed it, had supplied the automobiles and one of the guns used in connection with its commission, had shared in the loot, and had endeavoured to assist his co-defendants to escape the consequences of their crime (Goolkasian, 2006).

The facts are often conveniently summarized at the beginning of the court's published opinion. Sometimes, the best statement of the facts will be found in a dissenting or concurring opinion. WARNING! Judges are not above being selective about the facts they emphasize. This can become of crucial importance when you try to reconcile apparently inconsistent cases, because the way a judge chooses to characterize and “edit” the facts often determines which way he or she will vote and, as a result, which rule of law will be applied (Clarke, 2002). In this case The government in the accusation undertook to charge the defendants in count one with having forcibly robbed the University Bank, a State bank the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the United States, and in count two with having, while committing the robbery, put the lives of persons in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons.

Court's reasoning

The court charged the jury as follows: "If you find and believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant, with others, on ...