Henderson v. United States
| Citation | 204 F.2d 126 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11368.,11368. |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
C. P. J. Mooney and Eugene P. Boyd, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief, for appellant.
John Brown, Thomas C. Farnsworth and Edward N. Vaden, Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's petition for rehearing having been considered by the Court;
And the Court being of the opinion that the evidence complained of by appellant concerning collateral transactions on the part of the appellant was relevant as bearing upon the question of fraudulent intent, and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in permitting it to be considered by the jury under proper instructions by the Court; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 6 Cir., 72 F. 413, 422; Hartzell v. United States, 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 569, 584; Banning v. United States, 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 330, 337-338;
That the nature and degree of control by the Court of the conduct of government counsel and witnesses during the course of the trial, are matters addressed to the discretion of the Trial Judge; Twachtman v. Connelly, 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 501, 509; that the alleged unresponsive answers of certain witnesses had no substantial adverse effect upon the fairness of the trial; Stoppelli v. United States, 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 391, 395; and, in view of the fact that such matters are transitory in nature and are not likely to reoccur in the same form, if at all, in the next trial, it is inadvisable for this Court to attempt to rule on such questions in advance;
And, having again considered the other matters urged upon us by appellants, and being of the opinion that it is sufficient for the purposes of the retrial to call to the attention of the Trial Judge the possibility of reversible error in communicating to the jury through the medium of a deputy marshal; Ray v. United States, 8 Cir., 114 F.2d 508, 512, 513, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 709, 61 S.Ct. 318, 85 L.Ed. 461; Dodge v. United States, 2 Cir., 258 F. 300, 7 L.R.A. 1510, certiorari denied, 250 U.S. 660, 40 S.Ct. 10, 63 L.Ed. 1194.
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing be denied.
McALLISTER, Circuit Judge, is of the opinion that the petition for rehearing should be granted for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. United States
...1321." It is not only within the province of the trial judge, but it is his duty to maintain decorum during the trial. See Henderson v. U. S., 6 Cir., 204 F.2d 126, Id., 6 Cir., 218 F.2d 14, 50 A.L.R.2d 754; United States v. Goodman, 7 Cir., 110 F. 2d 390, 394; Jones, Dignity in Our Courtro......
-
United States v. Epstein
...been deceived is necessary for commission of this crime (see Henderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 400, rehearing denied, 6 Cir., 204 F.2d 126; Kreuter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 532, certiorari denied 349 U.S. 932, 75 S.Ct. 777, 99 L.Ed. 1262), this testimony see......
-
United States v. Medlin, 16034.
...of a new trial. It was a matter within his discretion. Carter v. United States, 231 F.2d 232, 236 (CA 5, 1956); Henderson v. United States, 204 F.2d 126, 127 (CA 6, 1953); Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 690 (CA 5, 1941); Cf. Obery v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 217 F.2d 860, 8......
-
Henderson v. United States
...of evidence which the Court considered incompetent and prejudicial. Henderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 202 F.2d 400, rehearing denied 6 Cir., 204 F.2d 126. On the retrial, in which the evidence held incompetent was not offered, appellant was again found guilty by a jury and received a sent......