Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

265 F.2d 344

Docket No. 14690.

Diehl v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 16, 1958.

Decided Jan. 15, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-01-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1959

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Respublica v. De Longchamps · Respublica v. Keating

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1959-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. William R. Leekemby, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), with whom Mr. Edgar A. Wren, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. Charles W. Halleck, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee.

¶3*345Before Prettyman, Chief Judge, and Washington and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the crime of housebreaking. The complaining witness was a military attache of a foreign embassy, and another witness was a domestic servant in his household. Appellant says that they were not competent witnesses, because they were not liable to punishment for perjury under their diplomatic immunity. We think the point is not well taken. These witnesses took the oath, and moreover the diplomatic immunity from punishment for perjury can be waived by superior diplomatic officials.1

¶6Affirmed.

/265/f2d/344 · .json · Public domain