From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzgerald v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 27, 1963
324 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 20191.

November 6, 1963. Rehearing Denied December 27, 1963.

John J. Sullivan, Savannah, Ga., for appellants.

Donald H. Fraser, U.S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.


We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J.C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.

As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Fitzgerald v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 27, 1963
324 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1963)
Case details for

Fitzgerald v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Edward A. FITZGERALD, Jr., and J.L. Witt, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 1963

Citations

324 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

United States v. Canales

See Montemayor at 1124. See also Johnson at 1325 n. 23; Fitzgerald v. UnitedStates, 324 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.…

United States v. Bacher

We do not think that the court's remark affected any substantial right of the defendant. See Rule 52,…