JAMES HISAJI WATADA, 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 trial court's failure to observe Rule 30 and give a specific cautionary instruction did not prejudice the appellant.
Appellant was convicted on one count of transporting a woman for prostitution and acquitted on another count of inducing such travel. The conviction w…
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 Cautionary Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted on the first and found not guilty on the second of a two count indictment charging him in the first count, with procuring an airplane ticket covering transportation from San Francisco, California, to Honolulu, Hawaii, and used in interstate commerce to transport a woman for the purpose of prostitution. (18 U.S.C. § 2421.) The second count had charged appellant with inducing and persuading the woman to so travel for such purpose. (18 U.S.C. § 2422.) Jurisdiction lies here on appeal. (28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1294(1).)
The appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction in count one. His only contentions in this appeal are that the trial court (1) failed to observe the provisions of Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P. (Title 18 U.S.C.), and (2) failed to give a requested cautionary instruction relating to the testimony of a prostitute. General instructions on the credibility of the witnesses were given.
Since counsel for appellant was in no manner inhibited or restricted in his argument to the jury, we find no prejudice to appellant by the failure of the court to observe the provisions of Rule 30, or to give the requested instruction and appellant has suggested none. The general instructions given were sufficient. Chargois v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 267 F. 2d 410, 412.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963)
-
United States v. Cleophas James Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Whitlock v. United States, 429 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chargois v. United States, 267 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1959)