Berkowitz v. United States

Third Circuit

Berkowitz v. United States

5 F.2d 967, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1925

DocketNo. 3257

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 F.2d 967 (Berkowitz v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berkowitz v. United States, 5 F.2d 967, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (3d Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question in this ease is the alleged error of the court wherein it said: .“Reasonable doubt means, first, what the words themselves indicate, a doubt founded in reason and must arise from the evidence. If, after a fair, impartial consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, you have'an abiding conviction of the guilt of the accused, to a moral certainty, then of course, you have no reasonable doubt.”

This involved no error. It stated in different words, but in substance, what was approved in Agnew v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36, 17 S. Ct. 235, 41 L. Ed. 624, viz.: “By a reasonable doubt is not meant a possible doubt, but such a doubt arising from the evidence that leaves the minds of the jury in such a state that they cannot say, after having reviewed all the evidence, that they have an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the guilt of the accused.”

The judgment below is therefore affirmed, and the cause remanded for due procedure.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole question in this ease is the alleged error of the court wherein it said: .“Reasonable doubt means, first, what the words themselves indicate, a doubt founded in reason and must arise from the evidence. If, after a fair, impartial consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, you have'an abiding conviction of the guilt of the accused, to a moral certainty, then of course, you have no reasonable doubt.”

This involved no error. It stated in different words, but in substance, what was approved in Agnew v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36, 17 S. Ct. 235, 41 L. Ed. 624, viz.: “By a reasonable doubt is not meant a possible doubt, but such a doubt arising from the evidence that leaves the minds of the jury in such a state that they cannot say, after having reviewed all the evidence, that they have an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the guilt of the accused.”

The judgment below is therefore affirmed, and the cause remanded for due procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F.2d 967, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-united-states-ca3-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack