Maurice J. Tolliver v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Maurice J. Tolliver v. United States

273 F.2d 523, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 398, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2872

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1959

Docket15299_1

StatusPublished

This text of 273 F.2d 523 (Maurice J. Tolliver v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice J. Tolliver v. United States, 273 F.2d 523, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 398, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2872 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in a one count indictment charging assault with a deadly weapon upon a member of the Metropolitan Police Department in violation of § 22-505 (b) of the D.C.Code (Supp.VII, 1959).

Appellant urges, first, that the failure of his counsel in the trial court to pursue his attempt to impeach a Government witness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Secondly, appellant claims that the trial court erroneously permitted the introduction of evidence and gave an erroneous instruction on the doctrine of flight.

We have examined both of these contentions and, under the circumstances of this case, find no error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in a one count indictment charging assault with a deadly weapon upon a member of the Metropolitan Police Department in violation of § 22-505 (b) of the D.C.Code (Supp.VII, 1959).

Appellant urges, first, that the failure of his counsel in the trial court to pursue his attempt to impeach a Government witness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Secondly, appellant claims that the trial court erroneously permitted the introduction of evidence and gave an erroneous instruction on the doctrine of flight.

We have examined both of these contentions and, under the circumstances of this case, find no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 F.2d 523, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 398, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-j-tolliver-v-united-states-cadc-1959.