Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

418 F.2d 234

Docket No. 27666.

United States v. Bailey

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 17, 1969.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-11-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1969

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Reina v. United States · International Ass'n of Machinists, Lodge 942 v. National Labor Relations Board · Thompson v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1S. Gunter Toney, Tallahassee, Fla., (Court-appointed), for defendants-appellants.

¶2Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., D. L. Rampey, Jr., Macon, Ga., for plaintiffappellee; Henry C. Stockell, Jr., Regional Counsel, I.R.S., of counsel.

¶3Before TUTTLE, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Upon careful consideration of the briefs and records in this case, it appears that the only significant point raised on appeal is the response made by a government witness that a telephone number listed in a book, found in possession of one of the defendants, was the name of one Bynum, a notorious liquor violator.

¶6The trial court struck this testimony from the record upon motion of defense counsel. The record discloses that counsel did not specifically request the court to direct the jury to disregard the evidence, and the trial court did not do so. We conclude the failure of the trial court to give further instructions was not improper where no request was made. See Blakeley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 235, and Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 272 F.2d 919, cert. den. 362 U.S. 940, 80 S.Ct. 805, 4 L.Ed.2d 769.

¶7The judgment is affirmed.

/418/f2d/234 · .json · Public domain