Presont v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Presont v. United States

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 37

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1922

DocketNo. 3634

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 37 (Presont v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Presont v. United States, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 37 (6th Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

DONAHUE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Prosecution in the U. S. District Court, N. D. O. Error to reverse judgment of conviction before Judge Killits, Knappen, Denison and Donahue, Circuit Judges.

Presont and two other defendants for -offenses under the national prohibition act. The two other defendants disclaimed all knowledge of the unlawful acts. The jury was instructed that knowledge that the law was ,being violated by either of the defendants subjected them to punishment f-or failing to inform the judge of the District Court. Presont was found guilty and sentenced. The Court of Appeals held that law under which the conviction was had, applied only to misprison of felony, and neither of the offenses charged were felonies. The judgment was reversed and new trial awarded.

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

DONAHUE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Prosecution in the U. S. District Court, N. D. O. Error to reverse judgment of conviction before Judge Killits, Knappen, Denison and Donahue, Circuit Judges.

Presont and two other defendants for -offenses under the national prohibition act. The two other defendants disclaimed all knowledge of the unlawful acts. The jury was instructed that knowledge that the law was ,being violated by either of the defendants subjected them to punishment f-or failing to inform the judge of the District Court. Presont was found guilty and sentenced. The Court of Appeals held that law under which the conviction was had, applied only to misprison of felony, and neither of the offenses charged were felonies. The judgment was reversed and new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presont-v-united-states-ca6-1922.