Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

324 F.2d 153

Docket No. 20191.

Fitzgerald v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 6, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1963.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1963-11-06

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1963-11-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1984

7 federal appellate ·

30196319701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John J. Sullivan, Savannah, Ga., for appellants.

¶2Donald H. Fraser, U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J. C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.

¶6As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.

¶7The judgment is affirmed.

/324/f2d/153 · .json · Public domain