Legal Opinion

Mitchell Et Ux. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 6, 1954No. 13884_1PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEMMON, Circuit Judge.

It is familiar technique for an appellant to seize upon every peccadillo committed by the lower court and magnify it until it becomes a blunder of major proportions.

The present case is no exception.

Although nine errors have been specified in this appeal, only three need be discussed.

The most serious objection is that the trial judge did not allow appellants’ counsel to cross-examine one of “the prosecution’s key witnesses”.

The appellee replies that, on the contrary, there was full cross-examination by the defense. It is pointed out that the witness in question was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Michelson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Alford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. St. Clair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Meyer Harris Cohen, AKA Michael 'Mickey' Cohen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  2. Matter of Estate of HermSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
  3. Esco Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
  4. United States v. Michael K. TerebeckiCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
  5. United States v. The Bensinger Company, United States of America v. The Hobart Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970

25 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