Weathers v. United States, 18202.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit , and KUNZEL |
| Citation | 322 F.2d 566 |
| Parties | Leroy WEATHERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 18202.,18202. |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1963 |
322 F.2d 566 (1963)
Leroy WEATHERS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18202.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
September 16, 1963.
Rehearing Denied December 23, 1963.
Jack H. Friedenthal, Stanford, Cal., for appellant.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., and Robert E. Woodward, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and KUNZEL, District Judge.
KUNZEL, District Judge.
Following trial by jury, appellant was convicted on two counts for violation of Section 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A.: the first, concealment of heroin; and the second, for the sale and facilitating the sale of heroin.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in reserving its ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case in chief, and further contends that the sentence imposed was based upon the trial Judge's unjustified observation that he believed appellant caused perjury to be committed at the trial.
Appellant argues that the motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted and that the failure to rule upon it when made was prejudicial in that defense counsel was probably misled by the court's action into believing that it was desirable to introduce evidence to convince the court that the motion should be granted. Appellant states that having been misled, defense counsel introduced testimony of an alleged alibi which backfired, and having proceeded with his case it gave the Government the opportunity to introduce evidence in rebuttal which convinced the jury of defendant's guilt.
Although it has been held to be error for a trial court to reserve its ruling on a motion for acquittal upon conclusion of the Government's case,1 such a holding is not applicable here.
The transcript reveals that the court reserved its ruling prior to the time the Government had completed its case. In response to objection by defense counsel to the introduction of the heroin involved on the ground that the Government had not proved its chain of custody in the hands of Government Agents, the following proceedings took place:
"MR. WOODWARD: * * * May we request permission to leave it open as to that portion?
"THE COURT: To establish the continuity?
"MR. WOODWARD: Yes sir. Other than that, we rest.
"THE COURT: All right.
"Mr. Carson, do you have a motion to make at this time?
"It is understood that the Government\'s case is closed except that they shall be permitted the privilege of putting on a witness — I am not saying that they can establish the continuity. I don\'t know whether they can. But at least we will give them the opportunity to bring in a witness who will attempt, I presume, to establish that continuity.
"Now, with that in mind, you may proceed with your case, or your statement, or any motions that you may have to offer at this time.
"MR. CARSON: Yes. I move for a judgment of acquittal at this point.
"THE COURT: Your motion will be taken under submission and a ruling will be made on it subsequently in the case.
"Now, you may proceed.
"MR. CARSON: I\'d like to call Mr. John Green."
The testimony relative to the chain of custody was not introduced by the Government until after the defense had rested, and at the conclusion of the Government's rebuttal evidence the court denied the motion upon which the ruling had been reserved....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Dreitzler, s. 77-1546
...if the government's evidence at the time of the motion is sufficient to support the jury verdict. Id.; see also Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. There is no need to again review the evidence proffered by the United States which was available to support the jury's verdict on......
-
State v. Stuart, 4798
...was not present. Having expressed my differences with the majority, I respectfully concur. --------------- 1 Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th cir. 1963); Jackson v. United States, 250 F.2d 897 (5th cir. 1958); State v. Butler, 51 Haw. 180, 187, 455 P.2d 4, 8 (1969) (concurring 2......
-
Moore v. United States, 18404.
...to present a jury question as to defendant's guilt. United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1966); Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1963). Additionally, the Second Circuit has recently ruled in United States v. Rosengarten, 357 F.2d 263, 266 (2nd Cir. 1966): "It is se......
-
Sullivan v. United States, 22193.
...because the Government's evidence, as it then stood, was sufficient to support the jury verdict. See Weathers v. United States, 9 Cir., 322 F.2d 566, Sullivan urges that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to separate after it began its deliberations. On June 13, 1967, at 4:50 p. m.,......
-
United States v. Austin, No. 72-1016 to 72-1019.
...Moore v. United States, 375 F.2d 877 (8th Cir. 1967); United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1966); and Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1963). Cf. United States v. Wininger, 427 F.2d 1128 (6th Cir. 1970). As was pointed out by the court in Weathers, supra: Assuming ......
-
U.S. v. Dreitzler, Nos. 77-1546
...if the government's evidence at the time of the motion is sufficient to support the jury verdict. Id.; see also Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. There is no need to again review the evidence proffered by the United States which was available to support the jury's verdict on......
-
Moore v. United States, No. 18404.
...to present a jury question as to defendant's guilt. United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1966); Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1963). Additionally, the Second Circuit has recently ruled in United States v. Rosengarten, 357 F.2d 263, 266 (2nd Cir. 1966): "It ......
-
State v. Stuart, No. 4798
...was not present. Having expressed my differences with the majority, I respectfully concur. --------------- 1 Weathers v. United States, 322 F.2d 566 (9th cir. 1963); Jackson v. United States, 250 F.2d 897 (5th cir. 1958); State v. Butler, 51 Haw. 180, 187, 455 P.2d 4, 8 (1969) (concurring 2......