United States v. Bernard James Woodmansee

Second Circuit

United States v. Bernard James Woodmansee

354 F.2d 235, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 1965

Docket169, Docket 29908

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 235 (United States v. Bernard James Woodmansee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bernard James Woodmansee, 354 F.2d 235, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bernard James Woodmansee appeals from a conviction on trial to the jury in the District of Vermont, Ernest W. Gibson, Judge, for obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. We find no error and affirm the conviction.

One Hendee was a witness for the prosecution in a Dyer Act case in which Woodmansee was charged. See United States v. Ploof, 311 F.2d 544 (2 Cir. 1963). Woodmansee pleaded guilty and testified falsely at the trial. He received sentences of one year for the Dyer Act offense and six months additional when convicted for the perjury. After release from confinement he encountered Hendee and assaulted him for his part in the prosecution. Woodmansee attacks the trial in three respects, a charge on failure to testify given without request, comment by the court on the credibility of a witness, one Godin, and the sufficiency of the evidence. We find no merit in any of these grounds of appeal. The evidence of the assault, and of Woodmansee’s remarks as to his reasons for it was plainly sufficient. Judge Gibson’s comment on his disbelief in Godin’s testimony of his lack of memory of the events was within the compass of the right of a judge in a trial in the Federal Courts to comment on the evidence. United States v. Dilliard, 101 F.2d 829, 835-836 (2 Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 484, 83 L.Ed. 1036 (1939), United States v. Bob, 106 F.2d 37, 40-41 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 589, 60 S.Ct. 115, 84 L.Ed. 493 (1939), Daniels v. Goldberg, 173 F.2d 911, 917 (2 Cir. 1949), United States v. Aaron, 190 F.2d 144 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Freidus v. United States, 342 U.S. 827, 72 S.Ct. 50, *236 96 L.Ed. 626 (1951). The judge’s volunteering of a correct instruction as to a defendant’s failure to take the stand is not reversible error, although it is better practice not to give it unless requested by a defendant. Becher v. United States, 5 F.2d 45, 49 (2 Cir. 1924). United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249, 252 (2 Cir. 1962).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Bernard James Woodmansee appeals from a conviction on trial to the jury in the District of Vermont, Ernest W. Gibson, Judge, for obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. We find no error and affirm the conviction.

One Hendee was a witness for the prosecution in a Dyer Act case in which Woodmansee was charged. See United States v. Ploof, 311 F.2d 544 (2 Cir. 1963). Woodmansee pleaded guilty and testified falsely at the trial. He received sentences of one year for the Dyer Act offense and six months additional when convicted for the perjury. After release from confinement he encountered Hendee and assaulted him for his part in the prosecution. Woodmansee attacks the trial in three respects, a charge on failure to testify given without request, comment by the court on the credibility of a witness, one Godin, and the sufficiency of the evidence. We find no merit in any of these grounds of appeal. The evidence of the assault, and of Woodmansee’s remarks as to his reasons for it was plainly sufficient. Judge Gibson’s comment on his disbelief in Godin’s testimony of his lack of memory of the events was within the compass of the right of a judge in a trial in the Federal Courts to comment on the evidence. United States v. Dilliard, 101 F.2d 829, 835-836 (2 Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 484, 83 L.Ed. 1036 (1939), United States v. Bob, 106 F.2d 37, 40-41 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 589, 60 S.Ct. 115, 84 L.Ed. 493 (1939), Daniels v. Goldberg, 173 F.2d 911, 917 (2 Cir. 1949), United States v. Aaron, 190 F.2d 144 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Freidus v. United States, 342 U.S. 827, 72 S.Ct. 50, *236 96 L.Ed. 626 (1951). The judge’s volunteering of a correct instruction as to a defendant’s failure to take the stand is not reversible error, although it is better practice not to give it unless requested by a defendant. Becher v. United States, 5 F.2d 45, 49 (2 Cir. 1924). United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249, 252 (2 Cir. 1962).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 235, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bernard-james-woodmansee-ca2-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack