United States v. John Hugh Herron

Ninth Circuit

United States v. John Hugh Herron

457 F.2d 798, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10650

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1972

Docket71-1320

StatusPublished

This text of 457 F.2d 798 (United States v. John Hugh Herron) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. John Hugh Herron, 457 F.2d 798, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10650 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John Hugh Herron appeals from the judgment of the district court convicting him of passing a counterfeit $20.00 bill, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472.

Herron’s sole assignment of error is, in substance, that the district judge, by refusing to make an advance ruling on the precise cross-examination that would be permitted of him, effectively kept him from testifying in his own behalf. The contention is frivolous. As succinctly stated by the Second Circuit in United States v. Guterma, 281 F.2d 742, 753 (2d Cir. 1960) “We are not aware of any requirement for such a ruling and Guter-ma had no reason to suppose objection to cross-examination would not be dealt with properly if he chose to take the stand.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

John Hugh Herron appeals from the judgment of the district court convicting him of passing a counterfeit $20.00 bill, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472.

Herron’s sole assignment of error is, in substance, that the district judge, by refusing to make an advance ruling on the precise cross-examination that would be permitted of him, effectively kept him from testifying in his own behalf. The contention is frivolous. As succinctly stated by the Second Circuit in United States v. Guterma, 281 F.2d 742, 753 (2d Cir. 1960) “We are not aware of any requirement for such a ruling and Guter-ma had no reason to suppose objection to cross-examination would not be dealt with properly if he chose to take the stand.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 798, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-hugh-herron-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack