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

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 23, 1959·No. 17818·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

272 F.2d 395 (L. T. Montford, A. Z. Handford and J. C. Hamilton v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related