TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William Woodrow Laird and Cecil Reese v. United States

William Woodrow LAIRD and Cecil Reese, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Laird v. United States, 252 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 14, 1958
Docket
No. 7533
Judges
Parker, Soper, Haynsworth
Citations
252 F.2d 1211958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3665

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a criminal case wherein appellants were convicted of illicit distilling in violation of the internal revenue laws. The appellants were indicted with one Dicks, who pleaded guilty and testified against them. There was ample evidence that a still was being operated by appellant Reese in a vacant tenant house belonging to Dicks and that appellant Laird was assisting in the operation. In addition to questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, the principal contentions of appellants are that Dicks and a government officer were allowed to remain in the court room when a separation of witnesses was ordered; that Reese had been “entrapped” into entering into a conversation with Dicks, in which he admitted his connection with the still, when a government officer by arrangement with Dicks was hidden in the trunk of the automobile in which the conversation occurred for the purpose of listening to it; and that appellant Reese was unduly questioned by the presiding judge. These contentions are entirely without merit. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence. Who should be allowed to remain in the court room when a separation of witnesses was ordered was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. There was no evidence or even contention that Reese was “entrapped” into the commission of a crime, but merely into a conversation in which he admitted connection with a crime that had already been committed. While the questioning of Reese by the judge was searching and extended and might present a serious question if the case were a close one, we do not think that, under the circumstances here, it could have affected the result or calls for the granting of a new trial.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11968: 11969: 11974: 119652026peak 1965 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carr v. State208 So. 2d 886 (Miss. 1968)
  2. United States v. Earl Missler414 F.2d 1293 (4th Cir. 1969)
  3. United States v. Delmar Earl Chrisco, United States of America v. Lewis Howell493 F.2d 232 (8th Cir. 1974)
  4. Maryland ex rel. Geils v. Baltimore Transit Co.38 F.R.D. 340 (D. Maryland 1965)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Delmar Earl Chrisco, United States of America v. Lewis Howell493 F.2d 232 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. United States v. Earl Missler414 F.2d 1293 (4th Cir. 1969)
  3. Carr v. State208 So. 2d 886 (Miss. 1968)
  4. Maryland ex rel. Geils v. Baltimore Transit Co.38 F.R.D. 340 (D. Maryland 1965)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list