Jean L. Rucker v. Pedro C. Gascon

D.C. Circuit

Jean L. Rucker v. Pedro C. Gascon

284 F.2d 244, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 110

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1960

Docket15743_1

StatusPublished

This text of 284 F.2d 244 (Jean L. Rucker v. Pedro C. Gascon) 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

Jean L. Rucker v. Pedro C. Gascon, 284 F.2d 244, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 110 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a negligence suit appeals from a judgment for the defendant. While the jury was deliberating, the trial judge permitted it to return to the courtroom to look at blackboard drawings of the scene of the accident. The blackboard had been shown to the jury, and both counsel had used it for demonstration purposes, but it had not been formally introduced in evidence. It would have been better practice not to let the jury re-examine the blackboard outside the jury room, in the absence of court and counsel and without the consent of counsel, but the error, if any, does not appear to have caused prejudice and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a negligence suit appeals from a judgment for the defendant. While the jury was deliberating, the trial judge permitted it to return to the courtroom to look at blackboard drawings of the scene of the accident. The blackboard had been shown to the jury, and both counsel had used it for demonstration purposes, but it had not been formally introduced in evidence. It would have been better practice not to let the jury re-examine the blackboard outside the jury room, in the absence of court and counsel and without the consent of counsel, but the error, if any, does not appear to have caused prejudice and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 F.2d 244, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-l-rucker-v-pedro-c-gascon-cadc-1960.