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.
David J. LAMB, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant in Error, 1924 — 1 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
General
David J. LAMB, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant in Error
1 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1924
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, 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
David J. LAMB, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 23, 1924.)
No. 4238.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; William I. Grubb, Judge.
Chas. D. Russell, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff in error. Chas. E. Donnelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga. (F. G. Boatright, U. S. Atty., of Cordele, Ga., and Chas. L. Redding and Chas. E. Donnelly, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Savannah, Ga., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
There was evidence tending to prove the plaintiff in error’s guilt of the offenses of which he was convicted. It follows that the court did not err in overruling his motion that a verdict of not guilty be directed. The sufficiency of the evidence to_ support a conviction was not affected by the failure of the government to take any action based on the circumstance that about a week prior to the trial the plaintiff in error informed the district attorney of the name and place of residence of a person who was charged by the plaintiff in error with having done .the incriminating acts which circumstantial evidence adduced tended to prove were done by the plaintiff in error. Affirmed.