United States v. Raymond Anthony Panzar

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Raymond Anthony Panzar

418 F.2d 1239, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9791

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1969

Docket26912_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 1239 (United States v. Raymond Anthony Panzar) 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. Raymond Anthony Panzar, 418 F.2d 1239, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9791 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a conviction of force-ably attempting to break into a branch of the United States Post Office to commit larceny in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115, is a mere grasping at straws.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial because of the alleged failure of the government to comply strictly with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with discovery and inspection of certain items of evidence within the possession of the government. Both in the case of testimony with respect to some gloves that were being carried by appellant and the government witness’ testimony of an oral “inculpatory statement,” we conclude that the trial court properly held that there was no violation of Rule 16. There is no showing that would permit us to hold that the trial court erred in concluding that with respect to either of these items, the government was aware of them until the day of the trial. See in this connection Miller v. Pale, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785,17 L.Ed.2d 690,1967; Levin v. Katzenbach, D.C.Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 287; and Jackson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 288.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a conviction of force-ably attempting to break into a branch of the United States Post Office to commit larceny in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115, is a mere grasping at straws.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial because of the alleged failure of the government to comply strictly with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with discovery and inspection of certain items of evidence within the possession of the government. Both in the case of testimony with respect to some gloves that were being carried by appellant and the government witness’ testimony of an oral “inculpatory statement,” we conclude that the trial court properly held that there was no violation of Rule 16. There is no showing that would permit us to hold that the trial court erred in concluding that with respect to either of these items, the government was aware of them until the day of the trial. See in this connection Miller v. Pale, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785,17 L.Ed.2d 690,1967; Levin v. Katzenbach, D.C.Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 287; and Jackson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 288.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F.2d 1239, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-raymond-anthony-panzar-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack