Eugene Joseph Carlin v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Eugene Joseph Carlin v. United States

351 F.2d 618

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1965

Docket22199

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 618 (Eugene Joseph Carlin 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

Eugene Joseph Carlin v. United States, 351 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted for violation of the statute on bail jumping. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146. Two questions are presented on appeal: whether the motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted and whether the appellant was prejudiced by comments of the prosecuting attorney in his address to the jury. It is enough to say with respect to the first question that the evidence presented a jury issue, and it was not error to deny the motion for judgment of acquittal. In his statement to the jury, counsel for the Government said that the defendant, who is the appellant here, “has yet to say where he was — where he had gone, insofar as the record is concerned — it is silent.” This statement is clearly a comment upon the failure of the appellant to testify as a defendant in a criminal cause. It is clearly prejudicial. Fowler v. United States, 5 Cir., 310 F.2d 66. The judgment of conviction and sentence must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted for violation of the statute on bail jumping. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146. Two questions are presented on appeal: whether the motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted and whether the appellant was prejudiced by comments of the prosecuting attorney in his address to the jury. It is enough to say with respect to the first question that the evidence presented a jury issue, and it was not error to deny the motion for judgment of acquittal. In his statement to the jury, counsel for the Government said that the defendant, who is the appellant here, “has yet to say where he was — where he had gone, insofar as the record is concerned — it is silent.” This statement is clearly a comment upon the failure of the appellant to testify as a defendant in a criminal cause. It is clearly prejudicial. Fowler v. United States, 5 Cir., 310 F.2d 66. The judgment of conviction and sentence must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-joseph-carlin-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack