Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. James Burel Jones

United States v. James Burel Jones, 460 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-05-18
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. James Burel Jones. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. JONES,460 F.2d 325(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAMES BUREL JONES,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1112.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
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.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Jones appeals from his conviction for possession of stolen mail.18 U.S.C. § 1708. We affirm.

[2] 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).

[3] 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.

[4] Affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.Page 371