UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ALFRED PINCIONE, 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.
A general objection to a jury instruction, incorporating prior specific objections, is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.
Appellant and co-defendant were convicted of Travel Act and Mann Act violations. The jury was given a charge that presumed witnesses spoke the truth, …
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 18 U.S.C. § 2421 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Pincione, the appellant in the present case, and Ann Marie Maselli were convicted in a joint trial of violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421.
The charge of the district court to the jury contained the following language:
Each witness is presumed to speak the truth; however, if you find the presumption of truthfulness to be outweighed as to any witness, you will give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, as you may think it merits.
Counsel for Maselli specifically objected to this charge. Counsel for Pincione objected generally, stating: “I incorporate all the objections made by other defense counsel.”
On the separate appeal of Maselli, this court held that the foregoing charge, to which a timely objection was made, was reversible error and remanded the case for a new trial. United States v. Maselli, 534 F. 2d 1197 (6th Cir. 1976).
In Maselli, we recognized that the above-quoted charge was not plain error, and that reversal would not be required in the absence of a timely objection. This holding was reiterated in United States v. LaRiche, 549 F. 2d 1088, 1093 (6th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 987, 97 S.Ct. 1687, 52 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977).
The Government contends that the general objection made by counsel for appellant in the present case is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Maselli. We disagree. Freije v. United States, 386 F. 2d 408, 411 (1st Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 859, 90 S.Ct. 129, 24 L.Ed.2d 111 (1969); United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F. 2d 310, 312-13 (2d Cir. 1960).
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hyman, 741 F.2d 906 (7th Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1960)
- Perkins v. Deegan, 396 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1969)
- Piacentile v. United States, 396 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1969)
- Nuss v. Looney, 430 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1977)
- Carter v. United States, 430 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1977)
- Freije v. United States, 386 F.2d 408 (1st Cir. 1967)
- United States v. LaRICHE, 549 F.2d 1088 (6th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Maselli, 534 F.2d 1197 (6th Cir. 1976)