Mrs. Dagmar C. Joseph v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Dagmar C. Joseph v. United States

343 F.2d 755

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1965

Docket21449_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 343 F.2d 755 (Mrs. Dagmar C. Joseph 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

Mrs. Dagmar C. Joseph v. United States, 343 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant-defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and prosecutes this appeal.

*756 The court finds no merit in appellant’s contentions that she was improperly denied a continuance and a bill of particulars. Both of these matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will be reviewed only when there is clear abuse. Taylor v. United States, 279 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1960); Robertson v. United States, 263 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1959). Clearly, no such abuse is shown by the present record. In regard to the refusal to grant a continuance it is noted that the original complaint was filed on June 4, 1962 and the case did not come to trial until January 21, 1964. The fact that the defendant had three different attorneys during the process of her conviction does not change the result since the record indicates that all facets of her case were adequately explored.

It is further shown by the record that the jury verdict was amply supported by the evidence. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant-defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and prosecutes this appeal.

*756 The court finds no merit in appellant’s contentions that she was improperly denied a continuance and a bill of particulars. Both of these matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will be reviewed only when there is clear abuse. Taylor v. United States, 279 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1960); Robertson v. United States, 263 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1959). Clearly, no such abuse is shown by the present record. In regard to the refusal to grant a continuance it is noted that the original complaint was filed on June 4, 1962 and the case did not come to trial until January 21, 1964. The fact that the defendant had three different attorneys during the process of her conviction does not change the result since the record indicates that all facets of her case were adequately explored.

It is further shown by the record that the jury verdict was amply supported by the evidence. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 F.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-dagmar-c-joseph-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack