Robinson v. United States
Decision Date | 02 January 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 20419.,20419. |
Citation | 325 F.2d 880 |
Parties | Robert Layton ROBINSON, Ann Griffin, Lucille Griffin and Dan Stewart McCollister, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Leon A. Wilson, II, Waycross, Ga., for appellants.
Albert Sidney Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Donald H. Fraser, U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the conviction of the appellants under an indictment charging them along with several other defendants, who have not appealed, with conspiracy to violate the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States by accepting wagers and conducting a lottery for profit without paying the occupational tax required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 4411.
The appeals raise three basic contentions. The first is that the trial court erred in not requiring the Government, in response to a motion filed by the appellants, to furnish all of the names of its witnesses, investigating officers and agents, and confidential informers, so as to permit the appellants to examine them in order to determine whether the prosecution was procured or made possible by the use of information or leads obtained by unlawful wire tapping and eavesdropping. The second ground is that certain evidence seized upon the execution of a search warrant was obtained illegally and should have been suppressed upon appellants' motion. The third ground is that as to each of the appellants the evidence was insufficient to warrant submitting the case to the jury. This point is urged even though this Court should decide that all of the evidence received by the trial court was properly admitted.
Since we must reach the question of sufficiency of the evidence and since a discussion of the legal questions will be facilitated by an understanding of the facts in the case, we think it appropriate to make a fairly full statement of the facts. This statement is taken from the brief of the appellants, which the Court finds to be extremely accurate and objective. It must be borne in mind that some of the persons mentioned in the statement were parties to the trial below but are not now before the Court on appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. Cardwell
...McDonald v. United States, 307 F.2d 272 (10th Cir. 1962); Grice v. United States, 146 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1945); Robinson v. United States, 325 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Anderson v. Rundle, 274 F.Supp. 364 (E.D.Pa.1967), or tells the officers to go ahead and search the ......
-
State v. Romeo
...federal Wagering Tax Act in the presence of the officer to warrant his arrest at that moment without a warrant. Cf. Robinson v. United States, 325 F.2d 880 (5 Cir. 1964). It is elementary that in such event 'a search of his person or of the things within his immediate possession or control,......
-
United States v. Horton
...was a joint user of the automobile. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969). 7 In Robinson v. United States, 325 F.2d 880 (5th Cir., 1964), we were concerned with a search of defendant Robinson's automobile based upon consent. Prior to searching the vehicle,......
-
Wade v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
...703; United States v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1965); Burke v. United States, 328 F.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1964); Robinson v. United States, 325 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. Smith, 308 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1962); McDonald v. United States, 307 F.2d 272 (10th Cir. Petitioner did ......