United States v. James Burel Jones
This text of 460 F.2d 325 (United States v. James Burel 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.
Opinion
Jones appeals from his conviction for possession of stolen mail. 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We affirm.
Neither of Jones’ claims has merit. The challenged remarks of the prosecutor, taken in context, were not such as to mislead the jury. Jones’ counsel did not object to them and made no request to the trial judge for a cautionary statement, if one were in fact warranted. While we are highly skeptical that there was any error, assuming that there were, it was surely harmless. Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a).
Jones also attacks one of the instructions to the jury. His counsel was afforded an opportunity to object to the instructions at trial and did not do so. Hence review is foreclosed. Fed.R.Crim. P. 30.
Affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
460 F.2d 325, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-burel-jones-ca9-1972.