Chastain v. United States, 10586.
| Citation | 138 F.2d 413 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 10586.,10586. |
| Parties | CHASTAIN et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
A. C. Wheeler, of Gainesville, Ga., for appellants.
M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The appellants were indicted November 24, 1942, and convicted Feb. 3, 1943, for a conspiracy with each other and with a number of other persons not indicted, to violate the internal revenue laws. A motion for continuance was made at the beginning of the trial February 1, 1943, by the defendants because of the absence of two witnesses. One of the witnesses was a person alleged to be a conspirator but not indicted, supposed to be in New York, to whom a subpoena was sent by registered mail January 22, without any reply. There was no showing as to what the witness would testify, or that fees for his attendance were tendered him. The court did not err in overruling this ground of the motion. The other absent witness, also a co-conspirator not indicted, was represented to be in the military service of the United States, not served with a subpoena because his whereabouts was unknown; and it was said he would testify that there had been no conspiracy between him and defendants as alleged, and that Sam Densmore, who was not on trial, was not concerned in any violation of law as alleged in Par. 9 of the overt acts. Paragraph nine does not refer to any violation of law, but merely alleges that Sam Densmore signed a bail bond as surety for named persons. The bond itself was the best evidence about that, and it was on its face certainly no violation of law to sign the bond. As to the participation of the witness in the conspiracy, the District Attorney agreed that the witness if present would testify as stated, but did not agree that such was the truth. The testimony was material, and the agreement that the witness would so testify, not admitting its truth, would not require the overruling of a motion for continuance otherwise complete. But this motion was not complete. There was no showing of any effort to locate the witness, or to procure his attendance, or that his attendance could likely be had by postponing the trial. Seven other alleged co-conspirators were present and testified along the same line. The court did not abuse discretion in overruling this ground of the motion.
We have examined the objections to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Toner
...or misleading requested instruction. George v. United States, 1942, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 125 F. 2d 559, 563; Chastain v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 413. The request was untimely. Lewis v. United States, 8 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 724, 726. It amounted to nothing more than an objectio......
-
Blackwell v. United States, 25522
...from the witness so as to establish its materiality. See Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 445; Chastain v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 413. The court did not err in denying the The last assignment of error to be considered, common to both appeals, centers on the te......
-
Overton v. United States, 25533.
...that he would be present in the event of a continuance. See Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 445; Chastain v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 413. There was no showing of diligence. See Parsons v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 252. The court did not abuse its d......
-
Couchois v. United States, 10777.
...a fair trial. If plaintiff had been represented by counsel of his own choosing, there would be no doubt about this, Chastain v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 413. Can it be that the fact alone that his counsel was court appointed instead of selected by the defendant has made an unfair tri......