Isaac R. Lawson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Isaac R. Lawson v. United States

301 F.2d 520, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 196

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1962

Docket16674_1

StatusPublished

This text of 301 F.2d 520 (Isaac R. Lawson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isaac R. Lawson v. United States, 301 F.2d 520, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 196 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted for violation of D.C.Code, § 22-505 (a) (1961) in that he had assaulted, resisted, impeded and interfered with an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department who was then engaged in the performance of his official duties. At the time, appellant had been placed under arrest and the officer was at a call box, sending for the police patrol. Although there was a conflict, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded as it did conclude, that the officer was attacked when the appellant sought to effectuate his escape. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel have earnestly urged all that could be said in appellant’s behalf but we find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

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

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted for violation of D.C.Code, § 22-505 (a) (1961) in that he had assaulted, resisted, impeded and interfered with an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department who was then engaged in the performance of his official duties. At the time, appellant had been placed under arrest and the officer was at a call box, sending for the police patrol. Although there was a conflict, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded as it did conclude, that the officer was attacked when the appellant sought to effectuate his escape. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel have earnestly urged all that could be said in appellant’s behalf but we find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 F.2d 520, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaac-r-lawson-v-united-states-cadc-1962.