Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

United States v. Owen Lattimore

United States v. Owen Lattimore, 232 F.2d 334 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1955)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-06-14
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that defendant’s answer as to whether he was a “follower of the Communist line” could not support a perjury conviction
  • use of phrase, “follower of the Communist line” was. too vague to support an indictment

Citator

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

Cited by
33 opinions
UNITED STATES v. LATTIMORE,232 F.2d 334(D.C. Cir. 1955)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Owen LATTIMORE, Appellee.
No. 12609.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
June 14, 1955.
Mr. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. John W. Jackson, Special Asst. to the Atty. Gen., at the time record was filed, Joseph M.F. Ryan, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., and George J. Donegan, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Messrs. Thurman Arnold and Joseph C. O'Mahoney, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Abe Fortas, Paul A. Porter and William D. Rogers, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON, FAHY, WASHINGTON, DANAHER, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the United States District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed by an equally-divided Court, and that each Judge of this Court reserves the right to file a statement1of his vote and his reasons.Page 334
  1. No opinions filed. ↩