TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. United States

Williams v. United States, 265 F. 625 (8th Cir. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 29, 1920
Docket
No. 5437
Judges
Hook
Citations
265 F. 6251920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1464
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Criminal law 0=^11(59 (1) — Prejudice from admitted testimony determined from whole case. Whether accused is prejudiced by the erroneous admission of evidence at a trial should not be considered abstractly, but the question is one of practical effect, when the trial as a whole and all the circumstances of the case are regarded. 2. Criminal law ^>1169(12) — Evidence of borrowing money held not prejudicial, where guilt was conclusive. In a prosecution for violating the White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910 (Comp. St. §§ 8812-8819), the admission of evidence that accused borrowed money from the woman and had not returned it, if erroneous, was not prejudicial, where the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and undisputed. <®5»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge. George AVilliams was convicted of violating the White Slave Traffic Act, and he brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hook

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

George Williams was convicted and sentenced for violating the White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910 ( 36 Stat. 825 [Comp. St. §§ 8812-8819]). The only complaint he makes in this court is of the admission at the trial of testimony that he borrowed a sum of money from the young woman in the case and had not repaid it. He urges that the testimony was not relevant to the question of his guilt, and that its admission was prejudicial.

[1,2] Whether prejudice results from the erroneous admission of evidence at a trial is a question that should not be considered abstractly or by way of detachment. The question is one of practical effect, when the trial as a whole and all the circumstances of the proofs are regarded. In the case before us the evidence of guilt, aside from that challenged, was overwhelming and undisputed. It was wholly that of the prosecution, and no denial or explanation of it was made in- defense. The guilt of the accused could not have appeared more conclusively, had he pleaded guilty in open court. It is manifest that he was not prejudiced by the admission of the testimony to which reference has-been made. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider whether the testimony was relevant or material.

The sentence is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11922: 11923: 11926: 11930: 11931: 11932: 11934: 11936: 11938: 21939: 31940: 11942: 11956: 11957: 11960: 119202026peak 1939 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Armstrong v. United States16 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1926)
  2. Smith v. United States267 F. 665 (8th Cir. 1920)
  3. Hewitt v. United States110 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1940)
  4. Hartzell v. United States72 F.2d 569 (8th Cir. 1934)
  5. Homer L. Blackwell v. United States244 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1957)
  6. Saul Henry Davis, Jr. v. United States229 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Robert James Garner v. United States of America, Lester L277 F.2d 242 (8th Cir. 1960)
  2. Homer L. Blackwell v. United States244 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1957)
  3. Saul Henry Davis, Jr. v. United States229 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1956)
  4. Kamanosuke Yuge v. United States127 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1942)
  5. Hewitt v. United States110 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1940)
  6. Guy v. United States107 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1939)

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