General
W. T. CLARK and Louis Ronaldi, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant In Error
4 F.2d 382·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1925
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
W. T. CLARK and Louis Ronaldi, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant In Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 5, 1925.)
No. 4250.
In Error to the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky; Charles H. Moorman, Judge.
J. L. Richardson, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs in error.
W. S. Ball, U. S. Atty., and Claude Hudgins and Lilburn Phelps, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Louisville, Ky., for the United States.
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
1. The search of the automobile was not unauthorized. Stafford v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 300 F. 537; Moseley v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 381, decided February 4, 1925.
2. The sufficiency of the evidence as against Ronaidi, and under the rule of Stafford v. U. S., supra, is challenged. The jury might well have thought it insufficient; but, considering the elements of improbability in Ronaldi’s story and conflicts between his story and that of Clark, we are not satisfied that there was error in submitting this issue to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.