U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Emile J. Daigle v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 6, 1958 · Prettyman, Washington, Burger

248 F.2d 608 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Joel Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Briones v. State (Haw. 1993)
Julius Silverman v. United States of America, Meyer Schwartz v. United States of America, Robert L. Martin v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1960)
People of Michigan v. Benjamin Keith McKewen (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
Woods v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
Dominique D. Woods v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
People v. Esparza-Treto (Colo. App. 2011)
Beattie v. State (Ind. 2010)
Ex Parte State (Ala. 2007)
State v. Wilson (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. McNeal (Wash. 2002)
State v. McNeal (Wash. 2002)
State v. Wilson (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)
People v. Frye (Colo. 1995)
United States v. Cassandra Y. Wilson (9th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Roland Richard Driver, A/K/A Roland Richard Mousseaux (8th Cir. 1991)
State v. Hall (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)
United States v. Driver (District Court, D. South Dakota 1991)
United States Ex Rel. Flowers v. Illinois Department of Corrections (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1991)
United States v. Sturm (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1987)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams (District Court, Virgin Islands 1987)
State v. Hall (W. Va. 1985)
United States Ex Rel. Hoffer v. Morrow (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1985)
State v. Logan (Utah 1985)
United States v. Powell (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
United States v. Mike Howard (8th Cir. 1974)

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.

Appellant was indicted in eight counts. The alleged offenses involved two transactions. As to each transaction the indictment charged, in successive counts, (1) embezzlement, (2) larceny, (3) forgery of a check, and (4) uttering of a forged check. He was convicted on the first count and given a sentence of imprisonment, which was suspended.

Appellant urges error in the failure of the court to require the prosecution to elect as to counts, in the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal, 1 in the court’s instructions to the jury, in the return by the jury of an inconsistent and antagonistic verdict, and in the court’s action in receiving a verdict of guilty on one count and directing a verdict of not guilty on another count. We have carefully considered the contentions, pressed upon us vigorously by counsel, but we find no error affecting substantial rights of the appellant.

Affirmed.

. See United States v. Daigle, 149 F.Supp. 409 (D.C. 1957).

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