United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Hillward Fruge, Defendant-Appellant. No. 73-4024. Summary Calendar. [Fn*], 492 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1974)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (April 19, 1974)

Docket number: 73-4024


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/hillward-fruge-no-summary-calendar-38386387
Id. vLex: VLEX-38386387

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Phillips Lee Saunders, Defendant/Appellant., 641 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Conroy, Raymond Dahl, Frederick Jacobs and Walter K. Schubert, Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard A. Walker, A/K/a 'Silver', Defendant-Appellant., 589 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1979)

Text:

Vernon McMannus, Eunice, La. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Donald E. Walter, U.S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Found guilty by a jury, adjudged guilty and committed to confinement in the Attorney-General's custody for a period of 40 months,[fn1] John Hillward Fruge appeals from his conviction under a one count indictment for violation of the White Slave Traffic Act, or Mann Act,[fn2] assigning numerous claims of prejudicial error. We fail to find merit in any ground of the appeal and affirm.

Error by the trial judge is asserted in the following respects:

As to a number of the claimed errors, no objection was made when they occurred, so as to permit the trial judge to remedy the asserted prejudice, and further so as to permit our review. None rise to the level of "plain error". F.R. Crim.P.Rule 52(b).

As to others, typically the conduct of the voir dire examination of potential jurors, the extent of cross-examination and the like, we think that they involve matters clearly within the trial court's wide discretion in the conduct of a criminal trial.

As to the remaining assignments we make these brief comments. There was no variance. The trial was conducted in an atmosphere of patience, impartiality and strict fairness with any rare admonition to counsel that "We want the facts" or "We want the truth" and the like evoked by the nature and the tenor of defense counsel's objections. The case was submitted to the jury under ample and fair instructions. Finally the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704, amply supported the verdict.

The judgment appealed from is right.

Affirmed.

[fn*] Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

[fn1] Directed by the sentencing trial judge to be served concurrently with a prior two year sentence imposed by another judge for a separate federal felony in the same district.

[fn2] Title 18, U.S.C. Sec. 2421.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access