From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 1972
460 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 72-1112.

May 18, 1972.

Frank McCabe (appeared), Frank Ubhaus, Asst. Federal Public Defenders, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James Bruen, Asst. U.S. Atty. (appeared), Robert Carey, Asst. U.S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before CARTER, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.


Jones appeals from his conviction for possession of stolen mail. 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We affirm.

Neither of Jones' claims has merit. The challenged remarks of the prosecutor, taken in context, were not such as to mislead the jury. Jones' counsel did not object to them and made no request to the trial judge for a cautionary statement, if one were in fact warranted. While we are highly skeptical that there was any error, assuming that there were, it was surely harmless. Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a).

Jones also attacks one of the instructions to the jury. His counsel was afforded an opportunity to object to the instructions at trial and did not do so. Hence review is foreclosed. Fed.R.Crim. P. 30.

Affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.


Summaries of

United States v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 1972
460 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

United States v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAMES BUREL JONES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 18, 1972

Citations

460 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

United States v. Esquer-Gamez

While the prosecutor might have been more careful, there was no reference to any prior criminal conduct by…