United States v. Roosevelt Lunsford and William James Thomas

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Roosevelt Lunsford and William James Thomas

316 F.2d 187, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5714

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1963

Docket8715

StatusPublished

This text of 316 F.2d 187 (United States v. Roosevelt Lunsford and William James Thomas) 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. Roosevelt Lunsford and William James Thomas, 316 F.2d 187, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5714 (4th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Both Lunsford and Thomas were convicted and they appealed, but Lunsford has not pressed his appeal and the hearing was on Thomas’ appeal only.

As to Thomas, the only question at the trial was one of fact as to the identity of this defendant as the person who sold the government agent a quantity of whisky. The agent’s testimony was sufficient to send the issue to the jury, and the jury resolved it against the defendant, Thomas.

The appellant argues that the agent might have been mistaken, but as to this it was the province of the jury, not ours, to judge, and its finding is not reviewable on appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Both Lunsford and Thomas were convicted and they appealed, but Lunsford has not pressed his appeal and the hearing was on Thomas’ appeal only.

As to Thomas, the only question at the trial was one of fact as to the identity of this defendant as the person who sold the government agent a quantity of whisky. The agent’s testimony was sufficient to send the issue to the jury, and the jury resolved it against the defendant, Thomas.

The appellant argues that the agent might have been mistaken, but as to this it was the province of the jury, not ours, to judge, and its finding is not reviewable on appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 187, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roosevelt-lunsford-and-william-james-thomas-ca4-1963.