U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1971

United States v. Bernard Lipsey and Daniel Wexler

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 7, 1971 · Koelsch, Ely, Kil-Kenny

438 F.2d 974 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Burton Marks (argued), of Marks, Sherman & London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellants., Richard L. Jaeger (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Michael Heuer, Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Thomas Albert Trejo (9th Cir. 1974)
United States v. Scully (9th Cir. 1976)

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were indicted, tried by a jury, and convicted of receiving, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315, stolen stock certificates which had been transported in interstate commerce.

*975 With the exception of one ruling which excluded evidence offered for purposes of impeachment, we find appellants’ assignments of error to be without substance. After an exhaustive study of the record, we hold that the evidentiary ruling, even if erroneous, was harmless within the meaning of Rule 52(a), FRCrimP. Taken, as a whole, the court’s instructions to the jury, which are now challenged, fairly stated the applicable law and, in any event, were not objected to at the trial. In the absence of plain error, which does not here exist, the instructions cannot be attacked on appeal.

Affirmed.

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