United States v. Walter Burkhart, Jr.

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Walter Burkhart, Jr.

545 F.2d 14, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1976

Docket76-1556

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 545 F.2d 14 (United States v. Walter Burkhart, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Walter Burkhart, Jr., 545 F.2d 14, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076 (6th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Before CELEBREZZE, McCREE and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of possession of firearms by one previously convicted of a felony contrary to 18 App. U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1). The indictment alleged appellant’s conviction of a felony on two prior occasions and the government in the trial refused an offer by appellant to stipulate that he had in fact been convicted of the lesser of the two felonies charged, the purpose of which was to prevent proof of either conviction being placed before the jury. Upon consideration, we conclude that the government was not required to accept in lieu of proof the defendant’s stipulation and was not limited to establishing only one prior conviction. See United States v. Smith, 520 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1975).

Judge McCree dissents for the reasons stated by him in his dissent in United States v. Fields, 500 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1974). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it is hereby affirmed.

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

ORDER

Before CELEBREZZE, McCREE and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of possession of firearms by one previously convicted of a felony contrary to 18 App. U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1). The indictment alleged appellant’s conviction of a felony on two prior occasions and the government in the trial refused an offer by appellant to stipulate that he had in fact been convicted of the lesser of the two felonies charged, the purpose of which was to prevent proof of either conviction being placed before the jury. Upon consideration, we conclude that the government was not required to accept in lieu of proof the defendant’s stipulation and was not limited to establishing only one prior conviction. See United States v. Smith, 520 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1975).

Judge McCree dissents for the reasons stated by him in his dissent in United States v. Fields, 500 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1974). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 F.2d 14, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walter-burkhart-jr-ca6-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack