Jack Marrin Williamson v. United States

340 F.2d 612
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 22, 1965·No. 21671_1·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the retrial of this case, as our mandate plainly called for, the deposition of Moye was not offered by either party for any purpose. Consequently, conditions (1) and (2) prescribed by our former opinion, Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 311 F.2d 441, were not pertinent, and the Government was not required to meet them. Entrapment as such on this record was not therefore raised. Nor was there any evidence which the Trial Judge knew either judicially, actually, or factually which indicated that the initiation or prosecution of this case was the fruit of any illegal contingent agreement with Moye. On the intrinsic merits, the evidence amply sustained the finding of guilty.

Affirmed.

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

Jack Marrin Williamson v. United States, 340 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1965).

340 F.2d 612 (Jack Marrin Williamson v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. William Rey
811 F.2d 1453 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)
State v. Wilkins
473 A.2d 295 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1983)
Langford v. State
571 S.W.2d 326 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
State v. Mullen
216 N.W.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1974)
Bobby Lee Moore v. United States
399 F.2d 318 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Andrew J. Harris v. United States
400 F.2d 264 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)