United States v. Freddie Clinton Ayers and Daniel Scott

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Freddie Clinton Ayers and Daniel Scott

431 F.2d 486, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7237

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 1970

Docket486

StatusPublished

This text of 431 F.2d 486 (United States v. Freddie Clinton Ayers and Daniel Scott) 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. Freddie Clinton Ayers and Daniel Scott, 431 F.2d 486, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7237 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Ayers and Scott were convicted after a jury trial of burglary of a United States Post Office in Waterloo, Alabama. Between them, they assign seven points of error on this appeal: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict; (2) that a variation between the indictment and the proof at trial concerning the date of the crime violated their rights to due process of law; (3) that the evidence seized in a seárch of appellant Scott’s person was inadmissible because the search was in violation of the fourth amendment; (4) that appellant Ayers was denied the right of cross-examination at the trial; (5) that the government’s offer of a written statement of a witness, to which appellant’s objections were sustained and references to which the jury was instructed to disregard, was a “plain error” and prejudicial to the appellants; (6) that old coins found in the appellant Scott’s possession were inadmissible because not clearly identified; and (7) that the trial judge made a prejudicial remark to defense counsel in the presence of the jury and also admitted evidence prejudicial to appellants over their repeated objections.

We have carefully examined each of the appellants’ contentions in the light of the record and have found with respect to the first point that the evidence clearly supports the jury verdict, and with respect to the remaining six, that they are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Ayers and Scott were convicted after a jury trial of burglary of a United States Post Office in Waterloo, Alabama. Between them, they assign seven points of error on this appeal: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict; (2) that a variation between the indictment and the proof at trial concerning the date of the crime violated their rights to due process of law; (3) that the evidence seized in a seárch of appellant Scott’s person was inadmissible because the search was in violation of the fourth amendment; (4) that appellant Ayers was denied the right of cross-examination at the trial; (5) that the government’s offer of a written statement of a witness, to which appellant’s objections were sustained and references to which the jury was instructed to disregard, was a “plain error” and prejudicial to the appellants; (6) that old coins found in the appellant Scott’s possession were inadmissible because not clearly identified; and (7) that the trial judge made a prejudicial remark to defense counsel in the presence of the jury and also admitted evidence prejudicial to appellants over their repeated objections.

We have carefully examined each of the appellants’ contentions in the light of the record and have found with respect to the first point that the evidence clearly supports the jury verdict, and with respect to the remaining six, that they are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F.2d 486, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-freddie-clinton-ayers-and-daniel-scott-ca5-1970.