BYRON F. GARRETT, E. J. HARDY, AND CLARENCE FOSTER, APPELLANTS,
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 evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or witness management.
Appellants were convicted on four counts related to an unregistered still. They appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in jury instruction…
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 Manifest Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Each of the three appellants was indicted and found guilty on four counts: (1) having possession and custody of an unregistered still; (2) carrying on the business of a distiller without giving the required bond; (3) illegally making and fermenting mash for distillation; and (4) having possession of distilled spirits in a container to which no tax stamp was attached. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601 (a)(1), (4), (7), 5604(a)(1).
The major contention of appellants is that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain their convictions. Appellants’ trial counsel, however, did not move for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure either at the end of the Government’s case or after trial.
In light of this failure, we are not called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence except to avoid a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” Fallen v. United States, 220 F. 2d 946, 949 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 924, 76 S.Ct. 213, 100 L.Ed. 808 (1955).
Such a miscarriage would exist only if it appears that the record is “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” Molina v. United States, 162 F. 2d 198 (5th Cir. 1947).
Cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960) (violation of due process clause to convict person when record devoid of evidence to support judgment).
In this case, not only is there evidence to support each conviction, but the evidence of guilt would be more than sufficient to support an affirmance if motions for judgment of acquittal had been made below.
Although again not objecting to the alleged defects at trial, appellants also urge now that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury and in allowing a government witness to remain in the courtroom during the trial. These allegations are without merit: the jury instructions were complete and correct, and permitting one government witness to hear the remaining testimony is “within the sound discretion of the trial judge,” e. g., Del Cristo v. United States, 327 F. 2d 208, 209 (5th Cir. 1964).
The judgment below is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Ingman, 426 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1970)
-
Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
United States v. Haney, 429 F.2d 1282 (5th 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
- Thompson v. City OF Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1960)
- Fallen v. United States, 220 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Domingo del Cristo v. United States, 327 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Molina v. United States, 162 F.2d 198 (5th Cir. 1947)
- Teal v. Bannan, 350 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1955)
- Gordon v. Texas, 350 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1955)