UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM PHILLIP TAYLOR, AKA WILLIAM JOSEPH FINDLEY, 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 held that there was no error in the jury selection, denial of acquittal motion based on sanity, compulsory denial of process, denial of speedy trial, denial of exhibits to the jury room, or denial of a new trial.
Appellant was convicted on two counts of threatening the president of the United States with bodily harm. The appellant raised several issues on appea…
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 Sound Discretion Of The District Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of threatening the president of the United States with bodily harm. 18 U.S.C.A. § 871.1
We find no error either in form or substance in the jury selection method used by the district court in this case. It was not error to deny the motion for acquittal on the basis of appellant’s lack of sanity.2 The record does not make out a case of compulsory denial of process in obtaining witnesses for the defense nor a denial of the right to speedy trial. It is urged that the court erred in not sending various exhibits to the jury room for use in the jury deliberation. There was no request that this be done. In any event, even if there had been a request, whether to grant or deny the request would have been for the sound discretion of the district court. It follows that no error was committed in this connection. See United States v. Stone, 5 Cir., 1973, 472 F. 2d 909. Moreover, we find no error in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
. He was sentenced to confinement at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri for treatment.
. See Taylor v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 329 F. 2d 384, for some background on appellant’s mental problems.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. United States, 505 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Stone, 472 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Taylor v. United States, 329 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1964)