Criminal Law · MBE-tested
William E. COTTINGHAM et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error
296 F. 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1924
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
William E. COTTINGHAM et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 11, 1924.)
No. 3909.
In Error to the District Court of the" United States, for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Andrew M. J. Cochran, Judge.
Gilbert Bettman, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Bettman, Riesenberg, Cohen & Steltenpohl, A. G. Riesenberg, and L. H. Steltenpohl, all of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief)j for plaintiffs in error.
Sawyer A. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Covington, Ky. (John E. Shepard and Rodney G. Bryson, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Covington, Ky., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, MACK, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The charge must be taken all together. So read, it sufficiently stated the necessity of finding that the acts of possession or sale were pursuant to a precedent common plan. We cannot think that the jury was likely to be misled in this particular by such parts of the charge as .are now claimed to indicate that guilt of conspiracy might be predicated merely upon these acts pnd in the absence of any common plan. The judgment is affirmed.