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.
JAMES v. UNITED STATES, 1926 — 16 F.2d 125 · caselaw · US
General
JAMES v. UNITED STATES
16 F.2d 125·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1926
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
JAMES v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
December 8, 1926.)
No. 4704
Witnesses <§=>267 — Restriction of cross-examination is within discretion of tria! judge.
Extent to which cross-examination will be restricted is within discretion of trial judge.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge.
Isabel James was convicted of an offense, and she brings error.
Affirmed.
. Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
David Polasky, of Detroit, Mich. (Delos G-. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and HOUGH, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed — as to proof of another offense, on authority of Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. 57, 61, 14 S. Ct. 26, 37 L. Ed. 996; Tucker v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 224 F. 833, 840; De Witt v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 291 F. 995, 1002; as to variance affeeting the fourth count, on authority of Claassen v. U. S., 142 U. S. 140, 12 S. Ct. 169, 35 L. Ed. 966, and Bullock v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 289 F. 29, 31; as to restriction of cross-examination, because within the discretion of the trial judge.