United States v. Hill

S.D. Ohio

United States v. Hill

263 F. 812, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1287

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio

DecidedFebruary 19, 1920

DocketNo. 1655

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 F. 812 (United States v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hill, 263 F. 812, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1287 (S.D. Ohio 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PECK, District Judge.

On motion for a new trial.

[1] It appearing, upon inspection, that the description in the search warrant contained of the things to be seized thereunder did not embrace any papers or documents of the defendant, and that therefore it was not broad enough to include the letter from Alonzo Taylor to the defendant, dated April 14, 1919, the defendant was, on his petition heretofore filed herein, entitled to a return of the said letter, and an order may be so taken. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; U. S. v. Friedberg (D. C.) 233 Fed. 313; State v. Slamon, 73 Vt. 212, 50 Atl. 1097, 87 Am. St. Rep. 711.

[2] And it further appearing that the said letter was improperly admitted in evidence against the defendant’s exception, and that the same was prejudicial to the defendant, the verdict will be set aside, and a new trial of this cause granted.

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

PECK, District Judge.

On motion for a new trial.

[1] It appearing, upon inspection, that the description in the search warrant contained of the things to be seized thereunder did not embrace any papers or documents of the defendant, and that therefore it was not broad enough to include the letter from Alonzo Taylor to the defendant, dated April 14, 1919, the defendant was, on his petition heretofore filed herein, entitled to a return of the said letter, and an order may be so taken. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; U. S. v. Friedberg (D. C.) 233 Fed. 313; State v. Slamon, 73 Vt. 212, 50 Atl. 1097, 87 Am. St. Rep. 711.

[2] And it further appearing that the said letter was improperly admitted in evidence against the defendant’s exception, and that the same was prejudicial to the defendant, the verdict will be set aside, and a new trial of this cause granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F. 812, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hill-ohsd-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack