UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS CARLTON BLECKLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1973-04-10
No. 72-3362
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
475 F.2d 1225 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the jury was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's sanity and was not bound by expert testimony.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of forcibly assaulting a U.S. Deputy Game Warden with a rifle. The defendant's sole defense on appeal was insanity.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict that Bleckley wilfully and by means and use of a dangerous weapon, a 30-30 rifle, forcibly assaulted a United States Deputy Game Warden who was engaged in the performance of his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111.

Bleckley’s sole point on appeal is that the Government failed to prove his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.

Bleckley’s defense of insanity at the time of the offense was properly submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence under a correct charge conforming to the standards of Blake v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 407 F. 2d 908.

“As we said in Blake ‘the evidence could go either way.’ Here the jury found that it went against the defendant. The jury need not be bound by defendant’s expert testimony, especially since there are ‘material variations between the experts themselves * * *.’ Mims v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 375 F. 2d 135, 143. It was for the jury, not the Court.” United States v. O’Neal, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F. 2d 695, cert. denied, 401 U.S. 917, 91 S.Ct. 898, 27 L.Ed.2d 818.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw