United States v. Vernon Percy Howard

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Vernon Percy Howard

452 F.2d 1200

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 1971

Docket71-2013

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 1200 (United States v. Vernon Percy Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Vernon Percy Howard, 452 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted, tried by a jury and found guilty of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of promoting prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge committed reversible error in calling a witness, at the suggestion of the government, and then refreshing the recollection of, or, impeaching the witness with her prior statements. Beyond question, the statements were helpful to the government’s case. On the record before us, the question of whether the judge abused his discretion is a close one. However, we need not answer the question. The evidence of the guilt of the appellant is otherwise so overwhelming that the error, if any, is harmless and did not affect his substantial rights. See, Rule 52 F.R.Crim.P.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted, tried by a jury and found guilty of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of promoting prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge committed reversible error in calling a witness, at the suggestion of the government, and then refreshing the recollection of, or, impeaching the witness with her prior statements. Beyond question, the statements were helpful to the government’s case. On the record before us, the question of whether the judge abused his discretion is a close one. However, we need not answer the question. The evidence of the guilt of the appellant is otherwise so overwhelming that the error, if any, is harmless and did not affect his substantial rights. See, Rule 52 F.R.Crim.P.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 F.2d 1200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vernon-percy-howard-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack