United States v. James Thomas Ginn

Fifth Circuit

United States v. James Thomas Ginn

455 F.2d 980, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11262

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1972

Docket71-2503

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 455 F.2d 980 (United States v. James Thomas Ginn) 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. James Thomas Ginn, 455 F.2d 980, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11262 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Convicted on two counts of passing counterfeit twenty dollar bills in the purchase of two television sets, defendant contends that the testimony of the man who sold the television sets should have been stricken because the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when cross-examination sought to reveal that the television sets were stolen. Since the seller’s source of the sets was irrelevant to the charge that defendant bought them with counterfeit money, we hold that cross-examination of the witness was not unreasonably limited by his refusal to tell where he got the sets he sold to defendant. United States v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d 606 (2nd Cir. 1963); Hamer v. United States, 259 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. den., 359 U.S. 916, 79 S.Ct. 592, 3 L.Ed.2d 577, reh. den. 359 U.S. 962, 79 S.Ct. 799, 3 L.Ed. 2d 769; cf. Peel v. United States, 410 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1969).

*981 With the testimony of this witness, there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.

Construing the jury instruction as a whole, resolving in favor of defendant the dispute in the briefs as to the exact language of the charge, we find no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial judge erred in his instructions concerning circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof required of the government. James v. United States, 416 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 907, 90 S.Ct. 902, 25 L.Ed.2d 87; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509; Williams v. Wainwright, 414 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1969).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Convicted on two counts of passing counterfeit twenty dollar bills in the purchase of two television sets, defendant contends that the testimony of the man who sold the television sets should have been stricken because the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when cross-examination sought to reveal that the television sets were stolen. Since the seller’s source of the sets was irrelevant to the charge that defendant bought them with counterfeit money, we hold that cross-examination of the witness was not unreasonably limited by his refusal to tell where he got the sets he sold to defendant. United States v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d 606 (2nd Cir. 1963); Hamer v. United States, 259 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. den., 359 U.S. 916, 79 S.Ct. 592, 3 L.Ed.2d 577, reh. den. 359 U.S. 962, 79 S.Ct. 799, 3 L.Ed. 2d 769; cf. Peel v. United States, 410 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1969).

*981 With the testimony of this witness, there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.

Construing the jury instruction as a whole, resolving in favor of defendant the dispute in the briefs as to the exact language of the charge, we find no merit to defendant’s argument that the trial judge erred in his instructions concerning circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof required of the government. James v. United States, 416 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 907, 90 S.Ct. 902, 25 L.Ed.2d 87; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509; Williams v. Wainwright, 414 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 980, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-thomas-ginn-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack