John Daniel Byars v. United States
John Daniel BYARS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Following trial by jury, appellant was found guilty under a three-count indictment charging unlawful possession of a still, unlawfully carrying on the business of a distiller, and unlawful possession of distilled spirits, and received a sentence of $300 fine and imprisonment of 179 days. Sections 2810(a), 2833(a) and 2803(a), Title 26, U.S.Code.
Part of the Government’s evidence was the testimony of two witnesses who stated that Matthews, a co-defendant, when arrested, made the statement, not in the presence of the appellant, that he was paid $6 a day by the appellant for working at the still. This testimony, although hearsay, was not objected to at any time during the trial, and no motion for judgment of acquittal was made at the close of the Government’s case or at the end of all the evidence in the case. Appellant concedes that the evidence, although weak, if competent and believed, was sufficient to take the case to the jury. He contends on this appeal that the foregoing hearsay testimony should be disregarded and the judgment reversed for lack of substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict. Moss v. United States, 6 Cir., 132 F.2d 875, 878 ; Loehr v. United States, 10 Cir., 54 F.2d 859 .
The Court is of the opinion that the hearsay evidence, in the absence of objections to its admission, was properly considered by the jury, Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 450 , 32 S.Ct. 250 , 56 L.Ed. 500 ; Clark v. McNeill, 6 Cir., 25 F.2d 247 ; that the weight to be given to such testimony in view of the attempt made to discredit it was also a question for the jury, Ross v. United States, 6 Cir., 197 F.2d 660, 665 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 832 , 73 S.Ct. 40 , 97 L.Ed. 648 ; and that it should not be disregarded by the Court on this review, Metcalf v. United States, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 213, 216-217 .
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Perry Lynch
- Mack Daniel and Ab Daniel v. United States
- Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. United States
- Clairon Vern Gibson v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company
- LA ROCHELLE
- Beaconwear Clothing Company, a Partnership Composed of Lawrence R. Nasher, and Joseph S. Nasher, Copartners, to the Use and Benefit of the Amalgamated Bank of New York v. The United States
Most recent
- United States v. Perry Lynch
- Beaconwear Clothing Company, a Partnership Composed of Lawrence R. Nasher, and Joseph S. Nasher, Copartners, to the Use and Benefit of the Amalgamated Bank of New York v. The United States
- Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. United States
- LA ROCHELLE
- Mack Daniel and Ab Daniel v. United States
- Clairon Vern Gibson v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.