TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fielding v. United States

Fielding v. United States, 164 F.2d 1022 (6th Cir. 1947)
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
December 12, 1947
Docket
No. 10490
Judges
Miller
Citations
164 F.2d 10221947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2022

Opinion of the Court — Miller

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

MILLER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal having been considered by the Court on the record, oral arguments and briefs of respective counsel; and it appearing that it was not error for the Government to prove its case without using all the witnesses available to it, Morton v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 329 , 147 F.2d 28, 31 , certiorari denied 324 U.S. 875 , 65 S.Ct. 1015 , 89 L.Ed. 1428 ; that no objection was made by counsel for appellant to the introduction in evidence of the exhibits carrying the notations now complained of, as provided by Rule 51, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 687, and counsel’s request that the Court call as its own witnesses the available witnesses not used by the Government in order that he might cross examine them was general and did not indicate that such cross-examination was desired for the purpose of explaining the notations on the exhibits referred to, or would be restricted to that field; that the calling of a witness by the Court as the Court’s witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, Hirschfeld v. United States, 7 Cir., 54 F.2d 62 ; United States v. Pape, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 778, 782 ; that such discretion was not abused by the trial court in the trial of this case; that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict; and no reversible error being shown by the record; it is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and is now, affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1949: 21957: 11961: 21963: 11970: 12012: 119492026peak 1949 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kowalchuk v. United States176 F.2d 873 (6th Cir. 1949)
  2. Pueblo v. Dumas Márquez82 P.R. Dec. 416 (1961)
  3. Romeo Estrella-Ortega v. United States of America, Alfredo Zamora-Yescas v. United States423 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1970)
  4. Dipson Theatres, Inc. v. Buffalo Theatres, Inc.86 F. Supp. 716 (W.D.N.Y. 1949)
  5. United States v. Alberto Flores488 F. App'x 68 (6th Cir. 2012)
  6. United States v. Comulada155 F. Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Alberto Flores488 F. App'x 68 (6th Cir. 2012)
  2. Romeo Estrella-Ortega v. United States of America, Alfredo Zamora-Yescas v. United States423 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1970)
  3. United States v. Manos223 F. Supp. 137 (W.D. Pa. 1963)
  4. People v. Dumas Márquez82 P.R. 402 (1961)
  5. Pueblo v. Dumas Márquez82 P.R. Dec. 416 (1961)
  6. United States v. Comulada155 F. Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Morton v. United States, 147 F.2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1945) 69
United States v. Pape, 144 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1944) 72
Hirschfeld v. United States, 54 F.2d 62 (7th Cir. 1931) 8

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