U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1962

United States v. John Raymond Van Buskirk, Alias Cole P. Kippling

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided June 5, 1962 · McAllister, Weick, Boyd

304 F.2d 871; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4909 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

W. E. Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant., J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

South-East Coal Company v. Consolidation Coal Company, South-East Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America (6th Cir. 1970)
Minor v. Williams (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1985)
United States v. Gary Lee Etheridge, Georgia Etheridge, William Eugene Beard, James Hermanbostic, Sammy Ray Cole (6th Cir. 1970)
Pessin v. Keeneland Ass'n (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1969)
United States v. Henry F. Bell (6th Cir. 1965)

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

ORDER.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and sentence of the appellant under Section 2314 of Title 18, U.S.C., for transporting in interstate commerce the sum of approximately ?8000.00, knowing the same to have been taken by fraud. Appellant claims errors by the district judge first, because of his failure to find after a hearing that conduct of one of the government witnesses in attempting during a recess in the trial to communicate with a juror was prejudicial, and second, in denial by the district judge of appellant’s request for a change of venue because of newspaper publicity.

The case has been considered on the briefs and written arguments of counsel and the record herein;

AND IT APPEARING that the determination of whether an unauthorized communication between a witness and a juror is prejudicial to a defendant lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, Johnson v. United States, C. A.5th, 1953, 207 F.2d 314, 322, cert. denied 347 U.S. 938, 74 S.Ct. 632, 98 L.Ed. 1087;

AND IT APPEARING that the trial judge has wide discretion in dealing with questions concerning change of venue, Graham v. United States, C.A. 6th, 1958, 257 F.2d 724, 729;

AND IT APPEARING that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge relative to either of the issues herein, and there being no reversible error in his rulings;

The judgment of conviction herein is affirmed, and it is so ordered.

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