Blatt v. United States

60 F.2d 481, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2552
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 15, 1932
Docket4734
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 60 F.2d 481 (Blatt 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
Blatt v. United States, 60 F.2d 481, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2552 (3d Cir. 1932).

Opinion

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment upon a verdict of guilty sentencing the defendant to fine and imprisonment. He was found guilty upon the second count of an information charging him with maintaining a. common nuisance in that he kept and maintained a barroom where intoxicating liquor was kept for sale and sold.

At the conclusion of the testimony and before the summing up to the jury, the attorney for the defendant presented requests, written in longhand, to the trial judge. The sixth request was as follows: “Reasonable doubt is that condition of the mind 1hat leaves the jury in such a state of mind after a consideration of all of the evidence that they cannot say they have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.” The court refused to so charge.

This definition of “reasonable doubt,” requested by the defendant, was approved in substance in Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 17 S. Ct. 235, 41 L. Ed. 624, and by this court in Berkowitz v. United States (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 967.

While the jurors were instructed that the defendant was not obliged to prove his innocence and that it was their duty to acquit him unless they found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they were given no instruction upon the meaning in the law of the term “reasonable doubt.” This was error prejudicial to the defendant. Nanfito v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 376.

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

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

Related

United States v. Desimone
119 F.3d 217 (Second Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Francisco Nolasco
926 F.2d 869 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Bates Baird Witt
648 F.2d 608 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Lansdowne v. State
412 A.2d 88 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
United States v. George Lawson
507 F.2d 433 (Seventh Circuit, 1974)
Joseph Friedman v. United States
381 F.2d 155 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
State v. Freeman
379 P.2d 632 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1963)
Holland v. United States. Holland v. United States
209 F.2d 516 (Tenth Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Stoehr
100 F. Supp. 143 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F.2d 481, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blatt-v-united-states-ca3-1932.