United States v. Milko Lasily and Richard Jesse Rusmisel

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Milko Lasily and Richard Jesse Rusmisel

441 F.2d 277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1971

Docket30839

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 277 (United States v. Milko Lasily and Richard Jesse Rusmisel) 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. Milko Lasily and Richard Jesse Rusmisel, 441 F.2d 277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11105 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted under three counts of an indictment brought under Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, having to do with the illegal importation and transportation of marihuana. Their appeal involves two assignments of error. First, it is urged that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the convictions. There is no merit whatever in this suggestion. Second, it is asserted that the trial court erred in precluding or limiting the cross examination of a prosecution witness, a marihuana user, relative to her possible coercion as a witness by a government official. Neither the claim of coercion nor the basis now alleged as a reason for the coercion were called to the attention of the trial court. No improper limitation on cross examination is reflected in the record. This assignment of error is also without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted under three counts of an indictment brought under Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, having to do with the illegal importation and transportation of marihuana. Their appeal involves two assignments of error. First, it is urged that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the convictions. There is no merit whatever in this suggestion. Second, it is asserted that the trial court erred in precluding or limiting the cross examination of a prosecution witness, a marihuana user, relative to her possible coercion as a witness by a government official. Neither the claim of coercion nor the basis now alleged as a reason for the coercion were called to the attention of the trial court. No improper limitation on cross examination is reflected in the record. This assignment of error is also without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-milko-lasily-and-richard-jesse-rusmisel-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack