Gabriel Diaz, Ray Baker, John Fannon, and Ronald Vincent Peccia v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Gabriel Diaz, Ray Baker, John Fannon, and Ronald Vincent Peccia v. United States

341 F.2d 912

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1965

Docket20498

StatusPublished

This text of 341 F.2d 912 (Gabriel Diaz, Ray Baker, John Fannon, and Ronald Vincent Peccia 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

Gabriel Diaz, Ray Baker, John Fannon, and Ronald Vincent Peccia v. United States, 341 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were convicted and sentenced under a three count indictment which charged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 relative to the transportation in interstate commerce of certain allegedly forged securities. Counts One and Two charged interstate transportation of Shell Union Oil Corporation bonds knowing the same to have been counterfeited. Count One charged that 11 of such bonds were transported from New Orleans, Louisiana to Miami, Florida, and Count Two that 146 were transported from Chicago, Illinois to Miami, Florida. Count Three alleged a conspiracy to commit the acts set forth in Counts One and Two. One defendant was found guilty on all three counts; one on Counts Two and Three; one on Count Three; and one on Counts One and Three. As to another defendant, the court directed a verdict of acquittal under Count One and the jury acquitted him on the remaining two counts.

The appellants specify numerous errors, including inconsistencies in the jury verdict, improper jury instructions, the refusal of requested instructions, lack of sufficient proof, failure of the Government properly to respond to a motion for a Bill of Particulars, incorrect rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the action of the court in directing the acquittal of one defendant, denial of a severance, and undue limitation of cross-examination on behalf of the defendants.

Counsel for the appellants have strongly urged their contentions by brief, oral argument, and supplemental brief. A careful examination and analysis of the various questions presented and skillfully raised by the appellants during a rather extended trial, fails to convince us that prejudicial error was committed

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were convicted and sentenced under a three count indictment which charged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 relative to the transportation in interstate commerce of certain allegedly forged securities. Counts One and Two charged interstate transportation of Shell Union Oil Corporation bonds knowing the same to have been counterfeited. Count One charged that 11 of such bonds were transported from New Orleans, Louisiana to Miami, Florida, and Count Two that 146 were transported from Chicago, Illinois to Miami, Florida. Count Three alleged a conspiracy to commit the acts set forth in Counts One and Two. One defendant was found guilty on all three counts; one on Counts Two and Three; one on Count Three; and one on Counts One and Three. As to another defendant, the court directed a verdict of acquittal under Count One and the jury acquitted him on the remaining two counts.

The appellants specify numerous errors, including inconsistencies in the jury verdict, improper jury instructions, the refusal of requested instructions, lack of sufficient proof, failure of the Government properly to respond to a motion for a Bill of Particulars, incorrect rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the action of the court in directing the acquittal of one defendant, denial of a severance, and undue limitation of cross-examination on behalf of the defendants.

Counsel for the appellants have strongly urged their contentions by brief, oral argument, and supplemental brief. A careful examination and analysis of the various questions presented and skillfully raised by the appellants during a rather extended trial, fails to convince us that prejudicial error was committed

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriel-diaz-ray-baker-john-fannon-and-ronald-vincent-peccia-v-united-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack