TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

H. J. Jones v. United States

H. J. JONES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

H. J. Jones v. United States, 309 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 17, 1962
Docket
No. 14960_1
Judges
Cecil, Boyd, Peck
Citations
309 F.2d 3611962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3908

Opinion

ORDER.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The appellant was found guilty by a jury on four counts of an indictment, involving the possession and sale of narcotics.

It was claimed on behalf of the appel-. lant that it was error for the District Judge to submit the question of the appellant’s guilt to the jury on the testimony of a witness who, herself, had been arrested for violation of the narcotic laws, when such testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses; that the District Judge erred in permitting the prosecution to read to the jury the title of an automobile issued to one Harry Jones without connecting Harry Jones to the Appellant, and that the Judge erred in admitting into evidence a telephone bill for Fred Lee, Apartment 202, 2725 W. Boston Boulevard, Detroit 6, Michigan.

The case was submitted to the Court upon the record and the briefs and oral arguments of counsel.

Upon consideration whereof the Court finds that there was substantial corroboration of the testimony of the witness, who acted as an informer for the government, and that the record as a whole discloses ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury; (Wag-man v. U. S., 269 F. 568, 571-572 , C.A. 6, certiorari denied, 255 U.S. 572 , 41 S.Ct. 376 , 65 L.Ed. 792 ; Ruby v. U. S., 61 F.2d 617, 618 , C.A.6, certiorari denied, 288 U.S. 617 , 53 S.Ct. 507 , 77 L.Ed. 989 ; Continental Banking Co. v. U. S., 281 F.2d 137 , 155, C.A.6; Henry v. U. S., 215 F.2d 639, 640-641 , C.A.9.) that the appellant was connected up with the car, the title of which was read to the jury, and that the telephone bill offered in evidence constituted proper rebuttal testimony.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1964: 119642026peak 1964 · 1

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Southern Paper Co. v. Robertson, 255 U.S. 565 (1921) 26
Wagman v. United States, 269 F. 568 (6th Cir. 1920) 16
Henry v. United States, 215 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1954) 15
Ruby v. United States, 61 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1932) 6

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