United States v. Young, 14764.

Decision Date06 April 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14764.,14764.
Citation301 F.2d 298
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Bill YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

H. H. Gearinger, Chattanooga, Tenn. (Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson, Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

David Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn. (John H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Leslie Bill Young, following trial by jury, was found guilty of violating the Internal Revenue Laws on a four-count indictment involving possession and custody of an illicit still. The single issue presented on the appeal is whether the conduct of the jury was so capricious as to deny the defendant due process of law. It is claimed in support of this issue that the jury was retired at 3:40 p. m. and returned to the jury box in a little short of four minutes, without sober deliberation and without going into the hallway beyond the jury box.

An affidavit of the defendant-appellant and his two co-defendants was filed in this Court with the appellant's brief, in an effort to establish the claim by evidence. This affidavit was not filed in the District Court and the question was not raised before the trial judge. We hold that the record cannot be enlarged in this manner and that the substance of the affidavit is not before us.

The official record of the trial discloses the following facts: that the trial judge instructed the jury to retire, select a foreman,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • US v. Childress
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 29, 1990
    ...is "a two-edged sword. The jury may have thought there was not even a shadow of doubt as to guilt." Id.; see also United States v. Young, 301 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1962) (upholding a verdict reached in four minutes); United States v. Rebhuhn, 109 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir.) (upholding trial court'......
  • State v. Morrill
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1969
    ...jurisdictions showing that the length of time taken by the jury in returning a verdict ranged from four minutes (United States v. Young, 1962, CA 6 Tenn., 301 F.2d 298, possession of an illicit still) to thirty minutes (Smith v. State, 40 Tex.Cr. 391, 50 S.W. 938, a murder case). The annota......
  • U.S. v. Lamb, 74--2406
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 29, 1975
    ...simple and the evidence of guilt strong. It is not surprising that the jurors could quickly arrive at a verdict. United States v. Young, 301 F.2d 298, 299 (6th Cir. 1962). There is certainly nothing unusual in having a jury reach a verdict in 29 minutes when the facts are clearly presented ......
  • Com. v. Doyle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1984
    ...See United States v. Brotherton, 427 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir.1970) (five to seven minutes sufficient for deliberation); United States v. Young, 301 F.2d 298 (6th Cir.1962) (four minutes enough); State v. Ballard, 126 N.J.Super. 427, 315 A.2d 45 (1974) (fifteen minutes adequate). See also Kimes v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT