Williams v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Williams v. United States

213 F.2d 25, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 173, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1954

Docket11843_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 F.2d 25 (Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. United States, 213 F.2d 25, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 173, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Convicted of illegally trafficking in narcotics, James S. Williams appeals. He says the District Court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s case because the evidence at that point showed he had been entrapped by a federal narcotics agent. He charges the court erred in then permitting the prosecution to reopen its case and introduce evidence tending to show his predisposition and criminal design. He complains also of the court’s charge concerning entrapment.

We think the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the prosecution to introduce additional proof after the plea of entrapment was entered. The issue was fairly submitted to the jury and its verdict, being supported by the evidence, must.stand.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Convicted of illegally trafficking in narcotics, James S. Williams appeals. He says the District Court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s case because the evidence at that point showed he had been entrapped by a federal narcotics agent. He charges the court erred in then permitting the prosecution to reopen its case and introduce evidence tending to show his predisposition and criminal design. He complains also of the court’s charge concerning entrapment.

We think the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the prosecution to introduce additional proof after the plea of entrapment was entered. The issue was fairly submitted to the jury and its verdict, being supported by the evidence, must.stand.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F.2d 25, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 173, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-united-states-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack