Pervis Daniels v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Pervis Daniels v. United States

272 F.2d 553

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1959

Docket15293_1

StatusPublished

This text of 272 F.2d 553 (Pervis Daniels 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

Pervis Daniels v. United States, 272 F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a narcotics conviction. Among the errors assigned is the failure of the trial court to grant appellant’s (defendant’s) motions for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case and, as well, after verdict. It is contended that the motions should have been granted “in view of the serious discrepancies in the testimony of the government’s own witnesses, and the serious nature of impeaching evidence, and the obvious discrepancies as to the government’s own exhibits, and the various locations given for the place of sale.”

It is true that there were discrepancies in the testimony but they were resolved against defendant, after a very fair charge by the court. We see no reason to disturb the verdict.

We have examined the other arguments for reversal, and find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a narcotics conviction. Among the errors assigned is the failure of the trial court to grant appellant’s (defendant’s) motions for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case and, as well, after verdict. It is contended that the motions should have been granted “in view of the serious discrepancies in the testimony of the government’s own witnesses, and the serious nature of impeaching evidence, and the obvious discrepancies as to the government’s own exhibits, and the various locations given for the place of sale.”

It is true that there were discrepancies in the testimony but they were resolved against defendant, after a very fair charge by the court. We see no reason to disturb the verdict.

We have examined the other arguments for reversal, and find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pervis-daniels-v-united-states-cadc-1959.