Benjamin F. Johnson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Benjamin F. Johnson v. United States

244 F.2d 781, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3159

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1957

Docket13692_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 F.2d 781 (Benjamin F. Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin F. Johnson v. United States, 244 F.2d 781, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3159 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant (appellant) was on trial for violations of § 3 and § 1711 of Title 18 U.S.C. After completion of the testimony, counsel for defendant requested the trial court to charge the jury to the effect that, if the Government failed to prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find the defendant not guilty. The court failed or refused so to charge. Nor did its instructions, as a whole, contain the substance of the request.

The giving of such a charge should be uniform practice. We think that, certainly in every case where such a charge is requested, failure so to charge, directly or in substance, is reversible error. Cf. Williams v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 131 F.2d 21; McAffee v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 142, 105 F.2d 21.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant (appellant) was on trial for violations of § 3 and § 1711 of Title 18 U.S.C. After completion of the testimony, counsel for defendant requested the trial court to charge the jury to the effect that, if the Government failed to prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find the defendant not guilty. The court failed or refused so to charge. Nor did its instructions, as a whole, contain the substance of the request.

The giving of such a charge should be uniform practice. We think that, certainly in every case where such a charge is requested, failure so to charge, directly or in substance, is reversible error. Cf. Williams v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 131 F.2d 21; McAffee v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 142, 105 F.2d 21.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 F.2d 781, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-f-johnson-v-united-states-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack