Leroy v. Government of Canal Zone

81 F.2d 914, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3579
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 19, 1936
Docket7745
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 81 F.2d 914 (Leroy v. Government of Canal Zone) 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
Leroy v. Government of Canal Zone, 81 F.2d 914, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3579 (5th Cir. 1936).

Opinion

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was separately tried and convicted under the same information which was described in the opinion rendered in the case of James Martin and Thomas Walters v. Government of the Canal Zone (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 913. In the trial which resulted in the conviction which is now under review the court, over the objection of the appellant, admitted in evidence the record of the conviction of James Martin and Thomas Walters under the above-mentioned information. Where two or more persons have been jointly charged with the same criminal offense, but one of them is separately tried after the others have been convicted, the judgment of conviction on that charge against the latter is not admissible in evidence against the one of those persons who is separately and subsequently tried on such charge. The previous conviction of others charged with the same criminal offense is not proof of appellant’s guilt of that offense. People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 27 N.E. 556; State v. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, 38 P. 124; Campbell v. State, 133 Ala. 158, 32 So. 635; 16 C.J. 670. The judgment is reversed.

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

Related

United States v. Roy Lee Leach
918 F.2d 464 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Fernando Miranda
593 F.2d 590 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. William E. Fleetwood, III
528 F.2d 528 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Lawrence Charles King
505 F.2d 602 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Commonwealth v. Thomas
279 A.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
United States v. Rufus Eafie Harrell
436 F.2d 606 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
J. B. Isaac v. United States
431 F.2d 11 (Ninth Circuit, 1970)
Alfred H. Osborne, Sr. v. United States
371 F.2d 913 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
United States v. Armando Restaino
369 F.2d 544 (Third Circuit, 1966)
United States v. Elmo Senior
274 F.2d 613 (Seventh Circuit, 1960)
United States v. Humble
11 C.M.A. 38 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1959)
State v. Kerley
97 S.E.2d 876 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
United States v. Rosenberg
146 F. Supp. 555 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
William L. Babb v. United States
218 F.2d 538 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
United States v. Hall
178 F.2d 853 (Second Circuit, 1950)
United States v. Toner
173 F.2d 140 (Third Circuit, 1949)
United States v. Toner
77 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 F.2d 914, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-v-government-of-canal-zone-ca5-1936.