Edward A. Fitzgerald, Jr., and J. L. Witt v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Edward A. Fitzgerald, Jr., and J. L. Witt v. United States

324 F.2d 153

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1963

Docket20191_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 324 F.2d 153 (Edward A. Fitzgerald, Jr., and J. L. Witt 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

Edward A. Fitzgerald, Jr., and J. L. Witt v. United States, 324 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J. C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.

As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J. C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.

As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-a-fitzgerald-jr-and-j-l-witt-v-united-states-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack