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
United States of America, Appellee, v. William Redin Blythe and Margaret Elizabeth Wycoff, Appellants
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 325 F.2d 96
Argued Nov. 5, 1963.Decided Nov. 14, 1963
Monroe M. Redden, Hendersonville, N.C. (W. Roy Francis, Waynesville, N.C., on the brief), for appellants.
William Medford, U.S. Atty., and Robert J. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty. (James O. Israel, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The defendants seek reversal of their conviction for the unlawful possession of nontaxpaid whiskey on the ground that the Trial Court erred in failing to grant their motion to suppress evidence seized from the car in which they were riding.
The case was first tried in May 1962, the jury failed to agree and the Court declared a mistrial. At that trial the arresting officer testified concerning the search and seizure.
At the second trial of the case in May 1963 objection was made for the first time to the admissibility of evidence seized by the officer.
The defendants failed to comply with Rule 41(e), which provides in part that the motion to suppress 'shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing.'
We find that the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion at the trial. United States v. Milanovich, 303 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1962).
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.