Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Reid v. United States
136 F.2d 476
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1943-06-17
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- motion for new trial denied
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Reid v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 9 opinions
REID v. UNITED STATES,136 F.2d 476(5th Cir. 1943)
REID v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10624.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 1943.
William T. Reid was convicted of threatening the life of the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 89. A motion for new trial was overruled,49 F. Supp. 313, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, U.S. Atty., and Albert E. Bryson, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
There was proof, believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that Reid had publicly stated that he hated President Roosevelt, that if he had the time and money he would go to Washington and kill the President, and that if the President should ever come south he most certainly would kill him. His hearers believed that the remarks were made purposefully. There is evidence indicating that Reid preferred that the United States be ruled by Hitler, and that he had contacts with a high German official in this country.
That the offense created by the statute was charged and proven is not open to doubt.1Evidence as to appellant's pro-German attitude was relevant to the issue as to whether the statements against the President were knowingly and willfully made, and was admissible. The charge of the court and the denial of the motion for a new trial have been considered and are free from error.
The judgment is affirmed.Page 477Page 486
- United States v. Stickrath, D.C., 242 F. 151; Clark v. United States, 5 Cir.,250 F. 449; United States v. Stobo, D.C., 251 F. 689; United States v. Jasick, D.C., 252 F. 931, 933; Ragansky v. United States, 7 Cir.,253 F. 643. ↩