Jordan v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Jordan v. United States

2 F.2d 598, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1924

DocketNo. 4239

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F.2d 598 (Jordan 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

Jordan v. United States, 2 F.2d 598, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127 (5th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). He admits the sale,’ but relies upon entrapment by the prohibition agents as a defense. The evidence shows without conflict that the government witnesses did no more than offer to buy liquor, and thus afford the plaintiff in error an opportunity to violate the law. This does not constitute entrapment. Ritter v. United States (C. C. A.) 293 F. 187.

Plaintiff in error was also convicted on a count which charged him with maintaining a nuisance, likewise in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The assignments of error which relate-to this offense need not be considered, as the sentence was not greater than could have been imposed for the unlawful sale.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). He admits the sale,’ but relies upon entrapment by the prohibition agents as a defense. The evidence shows without conflict that the government witnesses did no more than offer to buy liquor, and thus afford the plaintiff in error an opportunity to violate the law. This does not constitute entrapment. Ritter v. United States (C. C. A.) 293 F. 187.

Plaintiff in error was also convicted on a count which charged him with maintaining a nuisance, likewise in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The assignments of error which relate-to this offense need not be considered, as the sentence was not greater than could have been imposed for the unlawful sale.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F.2d 598, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-united-states-ca5-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack