Roy Thomas v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Roy Thomas v. United States

370 F.2d 96

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1967

Docket23462

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 96 (Roy Thomas 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

Roy Thomas v. United States, 370 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of willfully making false statements on his income tax returns for the years 1958 and 1959 in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1). Of the many specifications of error relied upon the only one that need be noted is the contention that the indictment should have been dismissed because the grand jury pool from which this particular grand jury was selected was compiled substantially from the Texas poll tax list. There was a complete lack of evidence that the grand jury pool used here did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. See Rabinowitz v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 34.

We have considered all the specifications of error and find them to be without merit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of willfully making false statements on his income tax returns for the years 1958 and 1959 in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1). Of the many specifications of error relied upon the only one that need be noted is the contention that the indictment should have been dismissed because the grand jury pool from which this particular grand jury was selected was compiled substantially from the Texas poll tax list. There was a complete lack of evidence that the grand jury pool used here did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. See Rabinowitz v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 34.

We have considered all the specifications of error and find them to be without merit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F.2d 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-thomas-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack