HENDERSON
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that evidence of collateral transactions was relevant to fraudulent intent and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion regarding control of counsel and witnesses.
Appellant petitioned for rehearing after a previous decision. The petition raised issues concerning the admissibility of evidence of collateral transa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. United States, 218 F.2d 14 (6th Cir. 1955)
-
Henderson v. United States, 202 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1953)
-
United States v. Grosso, 358 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartzell v. United States, 72 F.2d 569 (8th Cir. 1934)
- Stoppelli v. United States, 183 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Banning v. United States, 130 F.2d 330 (6th Cir. 1942)
- Twachtman v. Connelly, 106 F.2d 501 (6th Cir. 1939)
- RAY v. United States, 114 F.2d 508 (8th Cir. 1940)
- Roberts v. Bathurst, 311 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1940)
- Ray v. United States, 311 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1940)