United States v. Nina Starling Barden

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Nina Starling Barden

380 F.2d 382, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1967

Docket11070

StatusPublished

This text of 380 F.2d 382 (United States v. Nina Starling Barden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Nina Starling Barden, 380 F.2d 382, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record contains more than adequate support for the defendant’s conviction of possession of a government check knowing it to have been stolen from a mail box. It was not improper to receive in evidence a photostatic copy of the check. The accompanying certification of the Chief, Directives Control and Distribution Branch, Office of Administrative Services, Treasury Department, alone, was probably deficient to procure admission of the photostatic copy, but its authenticity as a correct copy was abundantly established by the testimony of the thieves who had stolen it, falsely endorsed it and delivered it to the defendant for negotiation. It was similarly identified by the person who cashed it as a copy of the check the defendant had negotiated.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record contains more than adequate support for the defendant’s conviction of possession of a government check knowing it to have been stolen from a mail box. It was not improper to receive in evidence a photostatic copy of the check. The accompanying certification of the Chief, Directives Control and Distribution Branch, Office of Administrative Services, Treasury Department, alone, was probably deficient to procure admission of the photostatic copy, but its authenticity as a correct copy was abundantly established by the testimony of the thieves who had stolen it, falsely endorsed it and delivered it to the defendant for negotiation. It was similarly identified by the person who cashed it as a copy of the check the defendant had negotiated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 F.2d 382, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nina-starling-barden-ca4-1967.