Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
LONGO v. UNITED STATES, 1933 — 64 F.2d 536 · caselaw · US
General
LONGO v. UNITED STATES
64 F.2d 536·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1933
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
LONGO v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6593.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 29, 1933.
Robert B. Todd, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Edmond E. Talbot, U. S. Atty., and P. M. Flanagan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied June 9, 1933.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of the unlawful sale of cocaine in violation of 26 USCA § 692. The only assignment of error is that the charge of the court was one-sided in that it emphasized the evidence in behalf of the government and did not fully present the testimony in behalf of the accused which tended to show that the sale alleged had not been made.
There was more evidence for the government than there was for appellant; but the District Judge fairly and impartially presented the substance of the evidence on both sides. The charge taken as a whole, as it must be, is not subject to the criticism that the trial judge was stating as a fact that the sale of cocaine had been made. lie only said that was the contention of the government, and immediately followed that statement with one that it was denied on behalf of appellant that the sale had been made.
The judgment is affirmed.