United States v. Dockins case brief summary
986 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1993)
CASE FACTS
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm. Defendant appealed arguing that the district court erred in ruling him competent to stand trial and in failing to grant a mistrial and hold a third competency hearing after his behavior at trial; and second, that the government failed to prove his status as a convicted felon, requiring reversal of his convictions.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court of appeals affirmed judgment holding court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold third competency hearing or to grant mistrial; and while court did abuse its discretion in admitting improperly authenticated fingerprint card from a prior conviction, it was harmless error not requiring reversal.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
986 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from a judgment of
the United States District Court for the District of Missouri that
found him guilty and convicted him of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and making false statements in the acquisition of a
firearm.CASE FACTS
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm. Defendant appealed arguing that the district court erred in ruling him competent to stand trial and in failing to grant a mistrial and hold a third competency hearing after his behavior at trial; and second, that the government failed to prove his status as a convicted felon, requiring reversal of his convictions.
DISCUSSION
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment holding court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold third competency hearing or to grant mistrial; and while court did abuse its discretion in admitting improperly authenticated fingerprint card from a prior conviction, it was harmless error not requiring reversal.
CONCLUSION
The court of appeals affirmed judgment holding court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold third competency hearing or to grant mistrial; and while court did abuse its discretion in admitting improperly authenticated fingerprint card from a prior conviction, it was harmless error not requiring reversal.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment