JAMES GRESHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 the appellant's contention that jury instructions coerced a verdict lacked merit.
Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1709 after a jury trial. The jury deliberated for several hours, receiving multiple instructions.…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, James Gresham, was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1709, pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The trial occupied parts of three days — February 23, February 25 and February 28, 1955. The jury was impanelled on February 23. On February 25, evidence was received, the case was argued, and the court gave part of its charge to the jury. On February 28, the court charged the jury further, and the jury retired to consider its verdict at 9:09 a. m., returned to the courtroom at 2:20 p. m., received further instructions,1 retired at 2:55 p. m., returned to the courtroom at 4:00 p. m., received further instructions2 and retired at 4:15 p. m. Thirty minutes later it returned a verdict of guilty. On that verdict, a judgment was entered sentencing appellant to be imprisoned for three years. This appeal is from that judgment.
Appellant contends that, by the instructions last above mentioned, the jury was coerced into arriving at a verdict. On that ground alone, he seeks reversal of the judgment.
In the trial court, appellant did not, at any time, object to any of the instructions or state any ground of such an objection.3 Hence we are not required to consider his contention.4 However, we have considered it5 and have found no merit in it.
Judgment affirmed.
. These instructions thus became a part of the charge.
. These instructions thus became a part of the charge.
. See Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. . Ziegler v. United States, 9 Cir., 174 F. 2d 439; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 201 F. 2d 767. See also Bridgman v. United States, 9 Cir., 183 F. 2d 750; Enriquez v. United States, 9 Cir., 188 F. 2d 313; Bateman v. United States, 9 Cir., 212 F. 2d 61; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Cir., 213 F. 2d 951; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 222 F. 2d 293.
. Cf. cases cited in footnote 4.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Claypole v. United States, 280 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1960)
-
Roberts v. United States, 239 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1956)
-
Straight v. United States, 263 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1959)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. United States, 222 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Bateman v. United States, 212 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Ziegler v. United States, 174 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1949)
- Mitchell et ux. v. United States, 213 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Enriquez v. United States, 188 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Bridgman v. United States, 183 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Brown v. United States, 201 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1953)