United States v. Palumbo

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Palumbo

317 F.2d 607

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1963

DocketNo. 361, Docket 28022

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 317 F.2d 607 (United States v. Palumbo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Palumbo, 317 F.2d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 659, in that he stole goods valued in excess of $100 that were moving in interstate commerce, seeks reversal of his conviction on four grounds: (1) The Government was permitted to introduce evidence relating to the date charged in the indictment rather than a date typographically incorrect set forth in a bill of particulars; (2) the Government failed to prove the value of the goods alleged to have been taken inasmuch as the only proof offered was the invoice thereof, setting forth the price; (3) the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the defendant having voluntarily taken the stand, the cross-examination of him by government counsel was in certain respects improper and deprived him of a fair trial.

We find no merit in any of these grounds of alleged error, and affirm the conviction below.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 659, in that he stole goods valued in excess of $100 that were moving in interstate commerce, seeks reversal of his conviction on four grounds: (1) The Government was permitted to introduce evidence relating to the date charged in the indictment rather than a date typographically incorrect set forth in a bill of particulars; (2) the Government failed to prove the value of the goods alleged to have been taken inasmuch as the only proof offered was the invoice thereof, setting forth the price; (3) the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the defendant having voluntarily taken the stand, the cross-examination of him by government counsel was in certain respects improper and deprived him of a fair trial.

We find no merit in any of these grounds of alleged error, and affirm the conviction below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-palumbo-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack