State v. Crooker
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On appeal by respondent. : The respondent, Crooker 'was indicted and tried jointly with one Pettis and; one Chapman for 'extortion of money under R: S., Chap: 120/Sec. 21. - The ‘respondents were tried together.
Read the full summary
On appeal by respondent. : The respondent, Crooker 'was indicted and tried jointly with one Pettis and; one Chapman for 'extortion of money under R: S., Chap: 120/Sec. 21. - The ‘respondents were tried together. During the progress of the1 trial, after the State’s cáse had been presented, counsel for the respondent, Crooker/ requested the privilege of'cross-examining the respondent; 'Pettis, one of the corespondents," which request was denied ■ by the presiding Justice and exceptions by dounsel for Crooker entered. Counsel for Crooker also filed a motion for' a mistrial Which Wás' denied and…
1Opinion of the Court
Cornish, C. J:
The respondent Crooker, "was jointly indicted with two others,' Charles 'Pettis' and Milton C. Chapman, under R. S., Chap. 120; Sec. 21, ofi the charge of’threatening to accuse one Newton of the offense of operating an automobile upon a public highway in Saco at an unlawful rate' of speed With' intent to extort money from him. Crooker was a member" of'the State Highway Police at the time of the alleged crime, the' other men were private citizens. Each respondent pl'eadéd' nót guilty and was represented at the trial by separate counsel. A motion was made for a separate trial of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. MullenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by22 opinions
- Coco v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
- Commonwealth v. LemanskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- State v. CraftOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Jack Stanley, Thomas A. Warren, Isom Meyers, and Hubert Stanley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1957
- State v. MartinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1949
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.