Reagin v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Reagin v. United States

164 F.2d 879

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1947

DocketNo. 12045

StatusPublished

This text of 164 F.2d 879 (Reagin 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

Reagin v. United States, 164 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This, like .Hardy’s case, Hardy v. United States, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 878, is another circumstantial evidence case. As in Hardy’s case appellant relies for reversal on one ground, that the evidence is not of sufficient cogency to point with unerring certainty to defendant’s guilt; that is, it does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. We cannot agree with appellant. The case made by the government, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to convict the defendant. The defendant, instead of offering some reasonable explanation of his presence near the still, which was consistent with his innocence, flatly denied his presence there. Having taken this course, and the jury having rejected his evidence, he is in a poor position now to complain that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to exclude every other hypothesis but that of his guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This, like .Hardy’s case, Hardy v. United States, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 878, is another circumstantial evidence case. As in Hardy’s case appellant relies for reversal on one ground, that the evidence is not of sufficient cogency to point with unerring certainty to defendant’s guilt; that is, it does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. We cannot agree with appellant. The case made by the government, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to convict the defendant. The defendant, instead of offering some reasonable explanation of his presence near the still, which was consistent with his innocence, flatly denied his presence there. Having taken this course, and the jury having rejected his evidence, he is in a poor position now to complain that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to exclude every other hypothesis but that of his guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reagin-v-united-states-ca5-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack