L. T. Montford, A. Z. Handford and J. C. Hamilton v. United States

Fifth Circuit

L. T. Montford, A. Z. Handford and J. C. Hamilton v. United States

272 F.2d 395, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3040

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1959

Docket17818

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 395 (L. T. Montford, A. Z. Handford and J. C. Hamilton 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

L. T. Montford, A. Z. Handford and J. C. Hamilton v. United States, 272 F.2d 395, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3040 (5th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. In the light of the argument by counsel for the appellants that the failure of the Government to call other witnesses shown to have had knowledge of the transactions would authorize the jury to infer that such witnesses would have testified favorably to appellants, it was not error for the United States Attorney, in his argument, to say: “The processes of this court are available to these defendants, and had they wanted one of these witnesses, right there they sit for them.” There is nothing in this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 919, 925, that conflicts with what we hold here.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. In the light of the argument by counsel for the appellants that the failure of the Government to call other witnesses shown to have had knowledge of the transactions would authorize the jury to infer that such witnesses would have testified favorably to appellants, it was not error for the United States Attorney, in his argument, to say: “The processes of this court are available to these defendants, and had they wanted one of these witnesses, right there they sit for them.” There is nothing in this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 919, 925, that conflicts with what we hold here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 395, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-t-montford-a-z-handford-and-j-c-hamilton-v-united-states-ca5-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack