United States v. Ince
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
21 F.3d 576 (1994)
- Written by Peggy Chen, JD
Facts
On September 4, 1992, a rap concert and dance at Fort Belvoir, Virginia ended when members of two of the performing bands got in a fight. Shortly thereafter, a man wearing an orange shirt or jacket fired a gun at trucks leaving the recreation center. Military police pulled over a van carrying Nigel Ince (defendant), Angela Neumann, and two other friends at the exit to Fort Belvoir. Ince was identified by two men as the person who had fired the shots (though he was not wearing an orange shirt at the time). Neumann then gave an unsworn statement to military police officer Roger Stevens that Ince had admitted firing the shots to Neumann. At Ince’s trial, the prosecution called Neumann and asked her to testify regarding Ince’s statements. Neumann claimed she did not recall and the unsworn statement did not refresh her recollection. The prosecution then called Stevens to testify as to what Neumann said, over Ince’s objections. The trial ended with a deadlocked jury. At the second trial, Neumann again did not recall and the prosecution again called Stevens to impeach Neumann as to her memory loss. Stevens testified that Neumann told him that Ince had confessed. Ince’s defense was mistaken identity; that it was another person who had fired the gun. Ince was convicted at the second trial and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murnaghan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
