-
249 F.2d 941·
7th Cir.·
1957-12-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant received a fair trial and was not denied any constitutional rights, affirming the conviction.
-
222 F.2d 11·
7th Cir.·
1955-05-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the prosecution was timely because the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applied to the offenses charged, which were related to the disposition of government surplus property.
-
587 F.2d 841·
6th Cir.·
1978-11-30
·cited 3×
The court held that the jury instruction on the inference from possession of recently stolen property was plain error as applied to the defendant for the interstate transportation charge, but sufficient evidence supported the conviction for selling the stolen automobile.
-
425 F.2d 268·
5th Cir.·
1970-05-04
·cited 3×
The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for transporting a stolen motor vehicle.
-
269 F.2d 544·
D.C. Cir.·
1959-06-11
·cited 3×
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant waived objections to evidence and instructions by failing to raise them at trial.
-
998 F.2d 74·
2d Cir.·
1993-06-29
·cited 2×
The court held that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery even if they only become aware of the robbery and participate during the escape phase, but the sentence enhancement for weapon use should be three levels, not four.
-
984 F.2d 928·
8th Cir.·
1993-01-28
·cited 2×
The court held that any error in cross-examining the defendant's son about his academic past was harmless, and the jury instructions and sentencing enhancements were proper.
-
978 F.2d 879·
5th Cir.·
1992-11-19
·cited 2×
The court held that even if the jury charge constructively amended the indictment, the error was harmless due to a stipulation and the defendants' failure to object, thus denying rehearing.
-
945 F.2d 1296·
5th Cir.·
1991-09-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the subjective standard for a good faith mistaken belief defense and that the exclusion of certain documentary evidence was either proper or harmless error.
-
467 F.2d 189·
6th Cir.·
1972-09-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions were erroneous and the trial court failed to comply with Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring reversal.
-
466 F.2d 1342·
9th Cir.·
1972-08-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's claims of instructional error and unconstitutional statutes lacked merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
D.D.C.·
1970-09-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's conviction for assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, and carrying a pistol without a license should be affirmed.
-
430 F.2d 663·
5th Cir.·
1970-07-27
·cited 2×
A defendant cannot assign as error the failure to give a jury charge that was specifically withdrawn, and a court's remark about a loan's legality was not prejudicial.
-
423 F.2d 1218·
9th Cir.·
1970-03-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial judge's comment on the evidence was not improper and, in any event, no objection was made, thus affirming the conviction.
-
390 F.2d 622·
6th Cir.·
1968-02-09
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's conviction for bank robbery was not prejudiced by any errors, and the judgment is affirmed.
-
335 F.2d 214·
9th Cir.·
1964-08-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instruction regarding the effect of a prior felony conviction on a witness's credibility, when considered in context with the entire charge, did not constitute plain error.
-
313 F.2d 337·
3d Cir.·
1963-02-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction for false oaths in bankruptcy, and the jury instructions were not erroneous.
-
252 F.2d 120·
5th Cir.·
1958-02-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's grounds for appeal were procedurally barred due to failure to object or move for suppression at trial.
-
241 F.2d 105·
6th Cir.·
1957-02-23
·cited 2×
The court held that appellants could not assign error to the jury charge because no exceptions were taken before the jury retired, as required by Rule 30.
-
239 F.2d 676·
3d Cir.·
1956-12-27
·cited 2×
The court held that a fundamental error in the jury charge, even without a specific objection, warrants a new trial.
-
990 F.2d 507·
9th Cir.·
1993-04-08
The court held that the prosecutor's comments about the defense's failure to call a witness were permissible because the defense opened the door, and that an erroneous jury instruction regarding drug quantity was not plain error given the strong evidence of guilt.
-
979 F.2d 282·
2d Cir.·
1992-10-23
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(B) does not require a racial or discriminatory motive for conviction. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions for the § 245 and bail-jumping counts.
-
968 F.2d 1366·
1st Cir.·
1992-06-30
The court held that simple assault under 49 U.S.C. § 1472(k)(1) is a lesser included offense of assault interfering with a flight attendant's duties under 49 U.S.C. § 1472(j), and the evidence warranted a jury instruction on the lesser offense.
-
521 F.2d 191·
6th Cir.·
1975-08-15
A conviction for assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111 does not require proof that the defendant knew the victim was a federal officer.
-
461 F.2d 655·
9th Cir.·
1972-05-26
The court held that the defendant's voluntary statements before arrest were not tainted by a lack of Miranda warnings, and his subsequent waiver was valid.
-
451 F.2d 564·
5th Cir.·
1971-11-16
The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding pre-trial motions, prosecutorial comments, and jury instructions were without merit.
-
440 F.2d 384·
9th Cir.·
1971-03-23
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the jury instructions were not erroneous.
-
431 F.2d 941·
9th Cir.·
1970-08-20
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's claims of judicial comment on evidence or improper jury instructions.
-
367 F.2d 562·
9th Cir.·
1966-10-19
The court held that the defendant's conviction for perjury was valid despite the government's prompt exposure of the falsehood.
-
338 F.2d 265·
D.C. Cir.·
1964-06-30
The court held that the trial court's erroneous rulings and charge regarding habit evidence were prejudicial and required reversal of the conviction.
-
324 F.2d 41·
4th Cir.·
1963-11-04
The court held that the failure to define 'possession' in jury instructions was not reversible error because the defendants did not object and no issue of possession was raised at trial, as their defense was an alibi.
-
291 F.2d 685·
5th Cir.·
1961-06-23
The court held that the defendants' convictions were valid because the evidence supported the jury's verdict and any objections to jury instructions were not properly preserved for appeal.
-
278 F.2d 262·
D.C. Cir.·
1960-04-07
The dissenting judge believes the court should address the issue of the accused's mental disease at the time of the offense, even if not properly raised below.
-
220 F.2d 785·
7th Cir.·
1955-03-18
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony on the value of the paintings, restricting cross-examination, denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, or in its jury instructions.