United States v. Philip Lowenthal

Second Circuit

United States v. Philip Lowenthal

224 F.2d 248, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4066

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1955

Docket23440_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 224 F.2d 248 (United States v. Philip Lowenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Philip Lowenthal, 224 F.2d 248, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4066 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It was the function of the jlury to decide as between diametrically opposite versions of the matters here in controversy; and the evidence produced by the prosecution was more than sufficient to support the charge. While condensed, the main charge on the subject of character witnesses, to which no exception was noted, was correct as far as it went; and the request for an instruction “that in considering the character testimony offered by the defense, if believed by the jury, in and of itself that testimony may create a reasonable doubt where without it none would have existed,” was too broad. True it is that evidence of good reputation may be deemed sufficient to engender a reasonable doubt, otherwise it would not be admissible on behalf of a defendant in a criminal trial. See Michelson v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168; Edgington v. United States, 1896, 164 U.S. 361, 17 S.Ct. 72, 41 L.Ed. 467. But such evidence must be considered in conjunction with all the evidence received at the trial, not “in and of itself.” Marzani v. United States, 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 168 F.2d 133, affirmed 1949, 336 U.S. 922, 69 S.Ct. 513, 93 L.Ed. 1075; United States v. Frischling, 3 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 370.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It was the function of the jlury to decide as between diametrically opposite versions of the matters here in controversy; and the evidence produced by the prosecution was more than sufficient to support the charge. While condensed, the main charge on the subject of character witnesses, to which no exception was noted, was correct as far as it went; and the request for an instruction “that in considering the character testimony offered by the defense, if believed by the jury, in and of itself that testimony may create a reasonable doubt where without it none would have existed,” was too broad. True it is that evidence of good reputation may be deemed sufficient to engender a reasonable doubt, otherwise it would not be admissible on behalf of a defendant in a criminal trial. See Michelson v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168; Edgington v. United States, 1896, 164 U.S. 361, 17 S.Ct. 72, 41 L.Ed. 467. But such evidence must be considered in conjunction with all the evidence received at the trial, not “in and of itself.” Marzani v. United States, 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 168 F.2d 133, affirmed 1949, 336 U.S. 922, 69 S.Ct. 513, 93 L.Ed. 1075; United States v. Frischling, 3 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 370.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 F.2d 248, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-philip-lowenthal-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack