TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams, 146 F.2d 651 (2d Cir. 1945)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 4, 1945
Docket
No. 149
Judges
Chase, Clark, Frank
Citations
146 F.2d 651

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried by jury in the District Court for the Southern District of Ne'w York on an indictment charging the use of the mail to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 338 . After conviction and sentence he has appealed and seeks a reversal on the ground of error committed by the court when, just before the case was submitted, the jury was told in response to the request of the district attorney that “Of course, ignorance of the law is never any excuse. Good faith does not excuse.” After that the court asked counsel if there were any exceptions and none were taken.

The defense of the appellant had been largely put upon his honest and reasonable belief that the representations he made were true,- and standing alone this terse statement as to good faith did not adequately and correctly inform the jury as to the law applicable to the issues on trial. Gold v. United States, 8 Cir., 36 F.2d 16 . But, even so, there is no reason to believe that the jury was confused. In the colloquial charge the jury had been correctly and sufficiently instructed as to the law on the subject, and had there been any reason to believe that what is now urged to be erroneous was likely to be misunderstood the judge should have' been given a chance to amplify or correct what he said by having his attention called to that at the time. United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, 848 . We will exercise our discretion to notice only plain error where no exception has been taken. The brief remarks of the judge are to be considered in connection with his previous clear exposition of the subject, and when that is done it cannot be ’ reasonably thought that the appellant was harmed in any respect.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1947: 11952: 11953: 11955: 11958: 11968: 119472026peak 1947 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Jones204 F.2d 745 (7th Cir. 1953)
  2. United States v. George F. Vasen222 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1955)
  3. Mondshine v. Short196 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1952)
  4. United States v. Bushwick Mills, Inc.165 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1947)
  5. Winfield Cleveland Conley v. United States257 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1958)
  6. Howell v. United States282 F. Supp. 246 (N.D. Ill. 1968)

Most recent

  1. Howell v. United States282 F. Supp. 246 (N.D. Ill. 1968)
  2. Winfield Cleveland Conley v. United States257 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1958)
  3. United States v. George F. Vasen222 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1955)
  4. United States v. Jones204 F.2d 745 (7th Cir. 1953)
  5. Mondshine v. Short196 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1952)
  6. United States v. Bushwick Mills, Inc.165 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1947)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1938) 265
Gold v. United States, 36 F.2d 16 (8th Cir. 1929) 13

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