UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WOODROW WILSON, AKA WOODROW WILSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1973-11-15
No. 73-2238
487 F.2d 510 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that testimony regarding the impression made by a mailing is admissible in a mail fraud prosecution.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant organized a fake corporation, the 'United States Merchant Marine,' and sent solicitations to boat owners, leading to a mail fraud conviction…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

Headquarters Building 2000 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Sir: Effective immediately, the United States Merchant Marine Office of Marine Registry shall accept registration and title applications for privately owned small craft, boats and motors. Please complete the enclosed forms and return to this office within five days. Very truly yours, /s/ William E. Blake William E. Blake Chief of Operations, USMM Responses, with fees, resulted.. This prosecution for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371) followed, resulting in appellant’s conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment. His primary point of error here is that the trial court permitted several recipients of the above missive to testify to the impression which it made upon their minds: a notice of mandatory registration requirements from some agency of the United States. These non-expert opinions on non-technical matters are said to have invaded the province of the jury, thus depriving appellant of due process of law. The question is not an open one in this circuit: “Testimony concerning the reasons why a witness was misled and what he thought the written instrument meant is proper evidence in a prosecution for mail fraud.” Shale v. United States, 5th Cir., 1968, 388 F. 2d 616, 618; Silverman v. United States, 5th Cir., 1954, 213 F. 2d 405. These cases, despite the valiant attempt of appellant’s counsel to do so, are indistinguishable from appellant’s, and we adhere to them. Review of the record below shows appellant’s other contentions to be merit-less. Affirmed. . The equivalent of the corporate president was entitled “Commandant,” of the vice presidents, “Chief of Operations, USMM,” or “Vice-Commandant, USMM, Supplies and Accounts,” etc.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw