Legal Opinion

United States of America, and v. William R. Rowe

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 18, 1970No. 26011_1PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant Rowe has been convicted of a customs fraud.

It was within the sound discretion of the trial court to limit Rowe’s testimony on collateral transactions of the accountant Zahnley.

The most serious point was on the denial of a peremptory challenge on a juror by the trial court right in front of the jury. This was probably no boon to defendant. The incident occurred because experienced counsel was not familiar with the practice in the particular division of the court.

The procedure and action of the court offended no statute or rule of the court. We hold that counsel here was responsible…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Avila v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. Brian E. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
  2. State v. BarthNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API