United States v. Eddie Cook

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Eddie Cook

450 F.2d 339

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1971

Docket71-1854

StatusPublished

This text of 450 F.2d 339 (United States v. Eddie Cook) 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

United States v. Eddie Cook, 450 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 495 and 2, in forging and uttering a United States Treasury check, and on another count charging possession of a stolen treasury check in *340 violation of 18 U.S.Ó.A., § 1708. He received concurrent sentences on the convictions and now appeals. We affirm.

There are three assignments of error. The first complaints of the cross-examination by the prosecution with respect to prior convictions of appellant. This complaint is without merit. See United States v. Saitta, 5 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 830, 831.

Next, it is urged that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury through a comment on the conflicts in the evidence. This event does not remotely approach error and thus is without merit.

Lastly, appellant contends that he was denied his Miranda 1 rights in connection with oral and written inculpatory statements. A careful review of the facts as developed on a motion to suppress and on the trial leads us to the conclusion that this claim is likewise without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 495 and 2, in forging and uttering a United States Treasury check, and on another count charging possession of a stolen treasury check in *340 violation of 18 U.S.Ó.A., § 1708. He received concurrent sentences on the convictions and now appeals. We affirm.

There are three assignments of error. The first complaints of the cross-examination by the prosecution with respect to prior convictions of appellant. This complaint is without merit. See United States v. Saitta, 5 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 830, 831.

Next, it is urged that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury through a comment on the conflicts in the evidence. This event does not remotely approach error and thus is without merit.

Lastly, appellant contends that he was denied his Miranda 1 rights in connection with oral and written inculpatory statements. A careful review of the facts as developed on a motion to suppress and on the trial leads us to the conclusion that this claim is likewise without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eddie-cook-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack