U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1919

Maupin v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 3, 1919 · Knapp, Pritchard, Woods

258 F. 607; 170 C.C.A. 61; 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1259

Counsel

G. T. Graham, of Rexington, S. C. (Timmerman, Graham & Callison, of Uexington, S. C., on the brief), for plaintiff in error., J. Waties Waring, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, S. C. (Francis H. Weston, U. S. Atty., of Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Guignard v. United States (4th Cir. 1919)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of illicit distilling in violation of sections 3258, 3279, and 3281 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. §§ 5994, 6019, 6021). The case is brought here on the narrowest technical ground. On the subject of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, the following instruction was given to the jury:

“Where a defendant is placed on trial charged with an offense, the law presumes that he is innocent, and it devolves on the government to prove every material fact necessary to constitute the offense charged against him to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the government has failed to do that then it is the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant.”

This covers the subject fully, and it is of no consequence that the instruction was not in the language requested by counsel. Of course, there is nothing in the point that the charge should have been that it devolves on the government to prove every material ingredient necessary to constitute the offense instead of every material fact.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.