Leo R. McGaffigan v. United States

First Circuit

Leo R. McGaffigan v. United States

359 F.2d 422, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1966

Docket6675_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 359 F.2d 422 (Leo R. McGaffigan v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leo R. McGaffigan v. United States, 359 F.2d 422, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388 (1st Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted, on two counts, of passing a counterfeit $10 bill in Brockton, Massachusetts on July 14, and another in Nantasket on July 17. His principal complaint on this appeal is that the jury should not have been permitted to consider the two events together on the issue of his knowledge of the spuriousness of the bills.

The circumstances of each passing were quite similar.. Because of the established falsity of defendant’s attempted exculpatory statement that he was not in Nantasket, and because of certain subsequent admissions with relation to the Brockton offense, this was far from a case in which there was simply a bare showing of two passings. The jury could properly consider what light, if any, one transaction cast upon the other. United States v. Leitner, 2 Cir., 1963, 312 F.2d 107. We see no error here, nor with respect to defendant’s other points.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted, on two counts, of passing a counterfeit $10 bill in Brockton, Massachusetts on July 14, and another in Nantasket on July 17. His principal complaint on this appeal is that the jury should not have been permitted to consider the two events together on the issue of his knowledge of the spuriousness of the bills.

The circumstances of each passing were quite similar.. Because of the established falsity of defendant’s attempted exculpatory statement that he was not in Nantasket, and because of certain subsequent admissions with relation to the Brockton offense, this was far from a case in which there was simply a bare showing of two passings. The jury could properly consider what light, if any, one transaction cast upon the other. United States v. Leitner, 2 Cir., 1963, 312 F.2d 107. We see no error here, nor with respect to defendant’s other points.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 F.2d 422, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leo-r-mcgaffigan-v-united-states-ca1-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack