Filasto v. United States

Second Circuit

Filasto v. United States

211 F. 329, 127 C.C.A. 578, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1744

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1914

DocketNo. 103

StatusPublished

This text of 211 F. 329 (Filasto v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Filasto v. United States, 211 F. 329, 127 C.C.A. 578, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1744 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record is a short one, involving only questions of fact on which the evidence was conflicting; the witnesses flatly contradicting each other. Their credibility of course was for the jury to pass upon.

The jury were instructed fully, carefully, and fairly—no objection or exception was taken to anything in the charge, nor 'was there any request submitted for further instructions; both sides evidently were satisfied that the charge was sufficient and unobjectionable. If the jury believed the testimony of the government’s witnesses (as their verdict shows they did), the offense was proved. There is nothing in the exception to the refusal to direct acquittal.

The technical points as to admission and exclusion of testimony are sufficiently disposed of in the opinion filed by the trial judge, on denying motion for a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed. .

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

PER CURIAM.

The record is a short one, involving only questions of fact on which the evidence was conflicting; the witnesses flatly contradicting each other. Their credibility of course was for the jury to pass upon.

The jury were instructed fully, carefully, and fairly—no objection or exception was taken to anything in the charge, nor 'was there any request submitted for further instructions; both sides evidently were satisfied that the charge was sufficient and unobjectionable. If the jury believed the testimony of the government’s witnesses (as their verdict shows they did), the offense was proved. There is nothing in the exception to the refusal to direct acquittal.

The technical points as to admission and exclusion of testimony are sufficiently disposed of in the opinion filed by the trial judge, on denying motion for a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F. 329, 127 C.C.A. 578, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filasto-v-united-states-ca2-1914.