UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALEXANDER TAGLE PEREZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's claims of judicial comment on evidence or improper jury instructions.
Appellant was convicted on two counts of violating narcotic laws. He appealed, alleging the judge made an improper statement about a co-defendant, com…
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 Comment On Evidence By Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant was charged and convicted on two counts, Eleven and Twelve, of a multicount indictment charging violations of narcotic laws. He raises three alleged errors: (1) the statement of the court that co-defendant Diaz was “involved in a whole series of heroin transactions” ; (2) the alleged improper comment by the court on the evidence; and (3) error in instructions given the jury on the identification of appellant.
We find no merit in the allegations of error. The statement of the trial judge as to Diaz gave no more information to the jury than had Counts Eleven and Twelve been read to it, as they well might have been.1 The trial judge is entitled to comment on the evidence at the trial and so long as the proper admonition was given by the court to the jury (as it was here, without objection as to inadequacy), such comment was not in error. Moreover, it was fair comment.
Finally, there was no offer of an instruction by the defendant as to identification, no request that one be given, and no objection to any instruction given. Under Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, there was no error. Affirmed.
. The record does not contain that portion of the record showing the impanelment of the jury.