United States v. Charles A. Jones

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Charles A. Jones

459 F.2d 47, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10072

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1972

Docket72-1036

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 47 (United States v. Charles A. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Charles A. Jones, 459 F.2d 47, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10072 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jones was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 472 (passing and possessing counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes). He appeals, contending that the prosecutor in final argument alluded to his failure to take the stand, and that the court’s curative instructions were inadequate.

The prosecutor asked an ambiguous rhetorical question about the defendant’s ability to speak. He quickly corrected himself, and the court likewise immediately told the jury that the defendant is under no obligation to put on *48 any evidence, or to take the stand. The denial of the motion for a mistrial was proper.

In all, the trial court instructed the jury four different times that the defendant had no duty to prove, any thing, and specifically told the jury that it could draw no inference of guilt from the defendant’s failure to testify. Assuming that some incipient error may have lurked in the prosecutor’s remark, had it gone unchallenged, any possible error was fully cured by the judge’s instructions. United States v. Taitano, 442 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 852, 92 S.Ct. 92, 30 L.Ed.2d 92 (1971).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jones was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 472 (passing and possessing counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes). He appeals, contending that the prosecutor in final argument alluded to his failure to take the stand, and that the court’s curative instructions were inadequate.

The prosecutor asked an ambiguous rhetorical question about the defendant’s ability to speak. He quickly corrected himself, and the court likewise immediately told the jury that the defendant is under no obligation to put on *48 any evidence, or to take the stand. The denial of the motion for a mistrial was proper.

In all, the trial court instructed the jury four different times that the defendant had no duty to prove, any thing, and specifically told the jury that it could draw no inference of guilt from the defendant’s failure to testify. Assuming that some incipient error may have lurked in the prosecutor’s remark, had it gone unchallenged, any possible error was fully cured by the judge’s instructions. United States v. Taitano, 442 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 852, 92 S.Ct. 92, 30 L.Ed.2d 92 (1971).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 47, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-a-jones-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack