Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Millard Robert Beasley, Defendnat-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 12, 1971No. 20029_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McCREE, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I believe that the majority opinion has correctly resolved all but the final issue it discusses. However, in discussing appellant’s second contention, I would not characterize the missing laboratory technician’s function as involving the performance of a test. If he had performed a test the issues of which were relevant, it would have been error not to have required him to testify because the test results would constitute an assertion,, verbal or otherwise, about a matter material in the litigation and evidence thereof would be…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Bell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. Prince v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. Ernesto Guarro v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
  5. United States v. Patrick Ralph Rizzo A/K/A Alfred Dale RosenheckCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API