Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Emile J. Daigle, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 248 F.2d 608
Argued September 13, 1957 Decided October 3, 1957 Writ of Certiorari Denied January 6, 1958
Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Joel Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted in eight counts. The alleged offenses involved two transactions. As to each transaction the indictment charged, in successive counts, (1) embezzlement, (2) larceny, (3) forgery of a check, and (4) uttering of a forged check. He was convicted on the first count and given a sentence of imprisonment, which was suspended.
Appellant urges error in the failure of the court to require the prosecution to elect as to counts, in the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal,1 in the court's instructions to the jury, in the return by the jury of an inconsistent and antagonistic verdict, and in the court's action in receiving a verdict of guilty on one count and directing a verdict of not guilty on another count. We have carefully considered the contentions, pressed upon us vigorously by counsel, but we find no error affecting substantial rights of the appellant.
Affirmed.
See United States v. Daigle, 149 F.Supp. 409 (D.C.1957)