| OCR Text |
Show UNITED STATES v. ADAMS Cite as 4S1 F.2d 1099 (1973) 1099 itself would be willing to assume these risks and burdens for the sake of obtaining the promised benefits." 80 So far as the human environment is concerned, NEPA has provided a means of answering this "basic question" by requiring full disclosure to the public and to other entities within government of all environmental effects likely to stem from agency action. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for entry of appropriate declaratory relief. So ordered. UNITED STATES of America v. Rufus E. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant. Nos. 72-1897, 72-1898. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued June 12, 1973. Decided June 26, 1973. By a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, June L. Green, J., the defendant was convicted of the crime of rape while armed, armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon in connection with each of two separate incidents and he appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated the convictions of assault with a dangerous weapon as lesser include offenses and held that the record showed sufficient similarity in the circumstances surrounding the two criminal episodes that the joinder of both in one trial was not prejudicial and that the identification procedure, which involved the submission of a drawing of a man to the victims, was not improper. Convictions of assault with a dangerous weapon vacated and all other convictions affirmed. 1. Criminal Law €=1186.1 Assault with a dangerous weapon convictions were vacated as lesser included offenses in armed robbery and armed rape. 2. Criminal Law €=620(1) Indictments arising out of separate incidents should not be consolidated for trial unless facts surrounding the two or more crimes show that there is such a reasonable probability that the same person committed both crimes due to concurrence of unusual and distinctive facts relating to manner in which crimes were committed that -the evidence of one would be admissible in the trial of the other to prove identity. 3. Criminal Law €=31166(1) Review of record showed that the similarity of circumstances surrounding the two criminal episodes on which charges of rape while armed and armed robbery were based were sufficiently remarkable to prove that there was a reasonable probability that the same person committed the crimes and there was no prejudice in the joinder of both crimes in one trial. 4. Criminal Law €=339 Government established, in prosecution for rape while armed and armed robbery, by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications of defendant by the victims were based on observation of suspect rather than on drawing of man submitted to victims for identification, and identification procedure was not improper. Aloysius B. McCabe, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this court), with whom Thomas C. Arthur, Washington, D.C, was on the brief, for appellant. N. Richard, Janis, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. 80. Green, supra note 42, 36 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. at 1040-1041. |
