United States v. William David Garaway

Ninth Circuit

United States v. William David Garaway

425 F.2d 185, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9654

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 1970

Docket23576_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 425 F.2d 185 (United States v. William David Garaway) 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. William David Garaway, 425 F.2d 185, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9654 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of refusing induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. The evidence against him was undisputed, and at the conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the jury as follows:

I, therefore, instruct you it is your duty as jurors to return a verdict of guilty. You may consider this matter and you may disregard my instructions, but I am instructing you as a matter of law that it is your duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment.

[1, 2J The quoted instruction was an unwarranted invasion by the court of the province of the jury, and contrary to the well-settled rule that a trial judge may not direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. United States, 330 U.S. 395, 67 S.Ct. 775, 91 L.Ed. 973 (1947); Edwards v. United States, 286 F.2d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 1960); Cain v. United States, 19 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1927); Blair v. United States, 241 F. 217, 230 (9th Cir. 1917). Nor was it permissible thus to express an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt. Buchanan v. United States, 244 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1957); Billeci v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 184 F.2d 394 (1950); ABA Project on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, § 4.7(b) (ii).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of refusing induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. The evidence against him was undisputed, and at the conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the jury as follows:

I, therefore, instruct you it is your duty as jurors to return a verdict of guilty. You may consider this matter and you may disregard my instructions, but I am instructing you as a matter of law that it is your duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment.

[1, 2J The quoted instruction was an unwarranted invasion by the court of the province of the jury, and contrary to the well-settled rule that a trial judge may not direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. United States, 330 U.S. 395, 67 S.Ct. 775, 91 L.Ed. 973 (1947); Edwards v. United States, 286 F.2d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 1960); Cain v. United States, 19 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1927); Blair v. United States, 241 F. 217, 230 (9th Cir. 1917). Nor was it permissible thus to express an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt. Buchanan v. United States, 244 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1957); Billeci v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 184 F.2d 394 (1950); ABA Project on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, § 4.7(b) (ii).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F.2d 185, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-david-garaway-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack