Robert Calvin Knapp v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert Calvin Knapp v. United States

316 F.2d 794, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1963

Docket19388_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 794 (Robert Calvin Knapp 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

Robert Calvin Knapp v. United States, 316 F.2d 794, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5442 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Aggrieved by the affirming opinion of this court, appellant’s counsel, by motion for rehearing, complains, as a miscon[795]*795-ception of the evidence, of the statement in the opinion that “there was evidence that defendant and Howard had a joint bank account in which the proceeds of the narcotics sales were deposited”. The opinion did not intend to say, it did not say, that any witness had used the term “joint” with reference to the account. All that was held in the opinion was that the evidence was sufficient to support a conclusion that the account was joint, and this is reaffirmed. Moreover the conclusion that the account was joint was not essential to the affirmance. Knapp admitted that he and Howard were partners in the narcotics business and it was undisputed that the proceeds of one of the sales testified to were deposited by Howard in the bank account.

Another matter, of which the appellant seeks to make much, though no point was made on it in the trial court, is the statement in the charge of the court that witnesses were presumed to tell the truth. Saying of these instructions:

“But the crowning blow, so to speak, was delivered by the trial court’s manifestly erroneous instruction that witnesses were presumed to tell the truth (complained of in the eighth ground for rehearing and in error seven of appellant’s original •brief). In a case where all the witnesses are prosecution witnesses, this amounted to a directed verdict of guilty. Appellant submits that a directed verdict of guilty is substantially prejudicial on its face and constitutes ‘plain error’ almost by definition.”

the appellant insists that, though not objected to as required by Rule 30, the instructions were so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error, reversible under Rule 52(b) as plain error.

The instructions complained of were taken bodily by the court from “Some suggested general instructions for federal criminal cases”, 27 F.R.D. at page 43 et seq., containing some seventy general jury instructions. The particular instructions appellant complains of were taken from, and are to be found in Sec. Presumption of Innocence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt”, p. 48, Platitudinous generalities, general platitudes, these were not weighted in any way against appellant in this case. Indeed, when considered as a whole, they really gave the defendant the best of it, and certainly could not be considered as constituting plain error under Rule 52 (b). This is not to say that we approve of the use in a charge of such platitudinous generalities, indeed we think it better for the court’s charge to eschew and avoid them in favor of precise and specific instructions on the very issues presented by the particular case. It is to say, though, that the use of these glittering generalities in this case was not error at all, much less plain error. 2.01 “

The motion for rehearing is Denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Aggrieved by the affirming opinion of this court, appellant’s counsel, by motion for rehearing, complains, as a miscon[795]*795-ception of the evidence, of the statement in the opinion that “there was evidence that defendant and Howard had a joint bank account in which the proceeds of the narcotics sales were deposited”. The opinion did not intend to say, it did not say, that any witness had used the term “joint” with reference to the account. All that was held in the opinion was that the evidence was sufficient to support a conclusion that the account was joint, and this is reaffirmed. Moreover the conclusion that the account was joint was not essential to the affirmance. Knapp admitted that he and Howard were partners in the narcotics business and it was undisputed that the proceeds of one of the sales testified to were deposited by Howard in the bank account.

Another matter, of which the appellant seeks to make much, though no point was made on it in the trial court, is the statement in the charge of the court that witnesses were presumed to tell the truth. Saying of these instructions:

“But the crowning blow, so to speak, was delivered by the trial court’s manifestly erroneous instruction that witnesses were presumed to tell the truth (complained of in the eighth ground for rehearing and in error seven of appellant’s original •brief). In a case where all the witnesses are prosecution witnesses, this amounted to a directed verdict of guilty. Appellant submits that a directed verdict of guilty is substantially prejudicial on its face and constitutes ‘plain error’ almost by definition.”

the appellant insists that, though not objected to as required by Rule 30, the instructions were so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error, reversible under Rule 52(b) as plain error.

The instructions complained of were taken bodily by the court from “Some suggested general instructions for federal criminal cases”, 27 F.R.D. at page 43 et seq., containing some seventy general jury instructions. The particular instructions appellant complains of were taken from, and are to be found in Sec. Presumption of Innocence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt”, p. 48, Platitudinous generalities, general platitudes, these were not weighted in any way against appellant in this case. Indeed, when considered as a whole, they really gave the defendant the best of it, and certainly could not be considered as constituting plain error under Rule 52 (b). This is not to say that we approve of the use in a charge of such platitudinous generalities, indeed we think it better for the court’s charge to eschew and avoid them in favor of precise and specific instructions on the very issues presented by the particular case. It is to say, though, that the use of these glittering generalities in this case was not error at all, much less plain error. 2.01 “

The motion for rehearing is Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 794, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-calvin-knapp-v-united-states-ca5-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack