REYNOLDS

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 351 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1956)
  …this Court refused to review the denial of the motion for a new trial. 307 U. S. 642. In at least three cases this Term we declined to review state criminal convictions in which much stronger allegations of perjury were made. See Reynolds v. Texas, 350 U. S. 863; Whitener v. South Carolina, 350 U. S. 861; and Coco v. Florida, 350 U. S. 828.…
• Addison v. United States, 317 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1963)
  …requested charge. Moreover, no exception was taken by appellants to the failure of the trial court to give this charge, as we have held is required to preserve such ground of appeal. Estep v. United States, 5th Cir., 223 F. 2d 19, 22, Cert. denied, 350 U.S. 863, 76 S.Ct. 105, 100 L.Ed. 765. In that case we stated, “Under that rule [Rule 30, F.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.], in order to put the trial court in error, it is necessary that the defendant precisely state the ground of his objection and that the ground…
• United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp. & Willard R. Custer, 376 F.2d 675 (4th Cir. 1967)
  …distinguishing this from the proof required under section 17 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q: that “the defendant loitli, intent committed a fraud.” Id. at 981. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Estep v. United States, 223 F. 2d 19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 863, 76 S.Ct. 105, 100 L.Ed. 765 (1955); Stone v. United States, 113 F. 2d 70 (6th Cir. 1940). A district court in the Third Circuit has ruled even more explicitly that “it was sufficient to establish that the defendants willfully and intentionally sol…