Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
D. L. Jolly, Sr. v. United States
D. L. Jolly, Sr. v. United States, 229 F.2d 180 (6th Cir. 1956)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1956-01-10
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. A jury found the appellant guilty upon four counts of an indictment charging attempts to evade federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 145(b), 1952 Ed. Of theretofore unblemished reputation, and a leader in his community, the appellant upon conviction was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and sentenced to a term of ten years in prison. Sixteen grounds for reversal are asserted by able counsel on this appeal. We find merit in none of them.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed D. L. Jolly, Sr. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
A jury found the appellant guilty upon four counts of an indictment charging attempts to evade federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 145(b), 1952 Ed. Of theretofore unblemished reputation, and a leader in his community, the appellant upon conviction was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and sentenced to a term of ten years in prison.
Sixteen grounds for reversal are asserted by able counsel on this appeal. We find merit in none of them. There was abundant evidence to support the jury’s verdict. No prejudicial error was committed in the admission of evidence, nor in the court’s refusal to give certain instructions requested by the appellant. While it would have been preferable for the trial judge to have included in his instructions an explicit recapitulation of each of the appellant’s various theories of defense, his omission to do so did not in our opinion constitute prejudicial error in this case. The instructions as given were otherwise complete and free from error. Nor did the court err in overruling the motion for a mistrial and the subsequent motion for a new trial.
The sentence imposed by the trial judge was in our opinion extremely severe. Since it was within his statutory authority, however, we are without power to review it.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.