Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

218 F.2d 862

Docket No. 12282.

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 20, 1954.

Decided Jan. 20, 1955.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1955-01-20

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1955

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1955-01-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mrs. Jean F. Dwyer, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Mr. Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Arthur McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U. S. Atty., Silver Spring, Md., also entered an appearance for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4*863PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant was convicted of willfully using a false document, viz. a purported prescription for a narcotic drug, and of procuring this document to be falsely and fraudulently executed. 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 26 U.S.C. § 3793. The evidence was circumstantial. It might have left a jury in reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it might have convinced a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is sufficient. Some of the evidence was hearsay. But appellant’s trial counsel, who was not her present counsel, did not object to its admission, and its admission without objection does not require reversal. We find no error affecting substantial rights.

¶6Affirmed.

/218/f2d/862 · .json · Public domain