LUDWIG WOLFGRAM

v.

RITCHIE T. MARSH, TRUSTEE, ETC.

Citator

Cited By

• De Luna v. United States, 308 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1962)
  …of de Luna to testify had not been made. He had no right to go that far. He did have the right to testify against de Luna as he did. Rickey v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F. 2d 583; Rowan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1922, 281 F. 137, cert. den., 260 U.S. 721, 43 S.Ct. 12, 67 L.Ed. 481. But no presumption or inference of guilt was permissible against de Luna from the fact that he did not testify. Bradford v. United States, 5 Cir., 1942, 130 F. 2d 630, cert. den., 317 U.S. 683, 63 S.Ct. 205, 87 L.Ed. 547.…
• Rickey v. United States, 242 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1957)
  …other testimony. A defendant has the right to testify on his own behalf or on behalf of the prosecution and such testimony voluntarily given is admissible against his co-defendant. Rowan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1922, 281 F. 137, certiorari denied 260 U.S. 721, 43 S.Ct. 12, 67 L.Ed. 481; United States v. Haynes, D.C.W.D.Pa.1948, 81 F.Supp. 63, affirmed 3 Cir., 173 F. 2d 223. Whether any and, if any, how much of his testimony was to be believed was for the jury. The situation presented here is much the sa…
• Hass v. United States, 93 F.2d 427 (8th Cir. 1937)
  …he indictment was not duplicitous, as the defendants claim. It charges but the one scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses. In Livezey v. United States, 5 Cir., 279 F. 496, at page 498, certiorari denied 260 U.S. 721, 43 S.Ct. 12, 67 L.Ed. 481, the-court considered a similar contention, and disposed of it in the following language: “It is contended that the indictment is bad for duplicity, because it charges a scheme to defraud and also to obtain money by false…