Charles I. Lichtenstein, A/K/A Charles Wells v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Charles I. Lichtenstein, A/K/A Charles Wells v. United States

341 F.2d 476

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1965

Docket20686

StatusPublished

This text of 341 F.2d 476 (Charles I. Lichtenstein, A/K/A Charles Wells v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles I. Lichtenstein, A/K/A Charles Wells v. United States, 341 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is pitched exclusively on the contention of appellant that the Government’s case was established solely by circumstantial evidence and that such-evidence “was wholly insufficient to convict, as it did not exclude, as it must, every other reasonable conclusion than that of guilt”. Appellant does not deny having done the acts that are alleged as the overt act under the conspiracy. There was ample evidence of the existence of a conspiracy and of appellant’s, identification with the other alleged conspirators to warrant the finding by the-trial court, sitting without a jury, that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable-doubt.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is pitched exclusively on the contention of appellant that the Government’s case was established solely by circumstantial evidence and that such-evidence “was wholly insufficient to convict, as it did not exclude, as it must, every other reasonable conclusion than that of guilt”. Appellant does not deny having done the acts that are alleged as the overt act under the conspiracy. There was ample evidence of the existence of a conspiracy and of appellant’s, identification with the other alleged conspirators to warrant the finding by the-trial court, sitting without a jury, that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable-doubt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-i-lichtenstein-aka-charles-wells-v-united-states-ca5-1965.