United States v. James Warren Bailey, William Harvey Brooks, Donald O'Neal Nelson, Edwin Jackson Waters, Joseph Nick Young

418 F.2d 234
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1969
Docket27666
StatusPublished

This text of 418 F.2d 234 (United States v. James Warren Bailey, William Harvey Brooks, Donald O'Neal Nelson, Edwin Jackson Waters, Joseph Nick Young) 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 Warren Bailey, William Harvey Brooks, Donald O'Neal Nelson, Edwin Jackson Waters, Joseph Nick Young, 418 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the briefs and records in this case, it appears that the only significant point raised on appeal is the response made by a government witness that a telephone number listed in a book, found in possession of one of the defendants, was the name of one Bynum, a notorious liquor violator.

The trial court struck this testimony from the record upon motion of defense counsel. The record discloses that counsel did not specifically request the court to direct the jury to disregard the evidence, and the trial court did not do so. We conclude the failure of the trial court to give further instructions was not improper where no request was made. See Blakeley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 235, and Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 272 F.2d 919, cert. den. 362 U.S. 940, 80 S.Ct. 805, 4 L.Ed.2d 769.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 F.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-warren-bailey-william-harvey-brooks-donald-oneal-ca5-1969.