Hardy v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Hardy v. United States

164 F.2d 878, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 473, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3312, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 473

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1947

DocketNo. 12043

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 F.2d 878 (Hardy 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

Hardy v. United States, 164 F.2d 878, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 473, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3312, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 473 (5th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of the Internal Revenue laws, appellant is here urging that the evidence, which was entirely circumstantial, was insufficient to take the case to the jury. In a brief reviewing the evidence and citing cases in support of his views appellant almost, but not quite, makes out his case. The evidence of the government was brief, and it was circumstantial, but taken in connection with the defendant’s denials, it cannot be said of it that it was not of that cogency required in a circumstantial evidence case. To set the evidence out will serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say of it that it supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of the Internal Revenue laws, appellant is here urging that the evidence, which was entirely circumstantial, was insufficient to take the case to the jury. In a brief reviewing the evidence and citing cases in support of his views appellant almost, but not quite, makes out his case. The evidence of the government was brief, and it was circumstantial, but taken in connection with the defendant’s denials, it cannot be said of it that it was not of that cogency required in a circumstantial evidence case. To set the evidence out will serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say of it that it supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F.2d 878, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 473, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3312, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-united-states-ca5-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack