v3243-229
"to be reached. Thus, upon the whole case, the
court not only followed a practice condemned, but
by its added expression of an opinion doubtless
impressed the jurors with the belief that the
court meant that it was their duty to bring in
a verdict against the defendant. We are therefore
constrained to believe that the statements of the
court were prejudicial, and that the judgment
should be set aside and a new trial ordered."
The Q uong Duck case is not in point here.
Appellant also cited the case of Ah Fook Chang
- United States (CCA 9, 1937).
In this case it was submitted to the
jury at approximately 12 o'clock noon, and a little after
5 o'clock the jury still deliberating, the foreman came
to the chambers of the presiding judge and in the presence
of attorneys for both sides, the government's attorney
informed the judge that the Jury wished to be advised if
the confession of defendant in the case could be considered
as evidence as evidence against the other. Defense
attorney requested the court to inform the foreman that
archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3243
Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243
Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3243#page/n228/mode/1up
Top Keywords (auto-generated):
foreman, wished, uong, thus, submitted, statements, sides, requested, reached, presiding, presence, prejudicial, practice, noon, meant
Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):
uong duck, practice condemned, fook chang, doubtless impressed, ah fook, added expression, 1937 .
Document Status: UGLY