Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 121
121 / 251
Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 117
sustained objections to improper questions, barred
testimony on an irrelevant area, made non-damaging
comments or clarifying remarks to the jury, explained
the pertinent law or himself asked questions of the
witness, all of which were well within his discretion.
United States v. Pellegrino, 470 F.2d 1205, 1206-08 (2d
Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 918 (1973); United
States v. Curcio, 279 F.2d 681, 682 (2d Cir. 1960), cert.
denied, 364 U.S. 824.
Insofar as the complaints of the Anderson plaintiffs
that Judge Perry disparaged their evidence or that he
engaged in acrimonious exchanges with their lawyers
are concerned, I regard these as nothing more than
instances in which the judge either lamented the
irrelevant and repetitive nature of appellants’ counsel’s
questions, instructed the jury on a relevant point of law,
or apie described improper questions by plaintiffs’
counsel,
The exchanges which did occur between court and
counsel were, it appears to me, the result of repeated
improper questioning and, on the whole, resulted from the
rude and insulting behavior on the part of the Anderson
plaintiffs’ lawyers. Thus, frequently, counsel would
persist in asking improper questions, in interrupting, in
making improper statements in front of the jury, and in
continuing to argue and object after the judge had made
a ruling. It is well settled that the judge may admonish
counsel for unnecessary and improper questions or for
failing to comply with the rules of the court. Miley v.
Delta Marine Drilling Co., 473 F.2d 856, 857 (5th Cir.
1978), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 871 (1974); United States v.
Glaziou, 402 F.2d 8, 17 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393
U.S. 1121 (1969); Pacifie Coast Cheese, Inc. v. Wirtz, 314
F.2d 145, 148 (9th Cir. 1968), and the judge did nothing
more than that here.
As the court stated in Volkswagen Interamericana,
S.A. v. Rohlsen, 360 F.2d 487, 445 (1st Cir. 1966), cert.
denied, 385 U.S. 919:
It is inappropriate for counsel to complain of
treatment that he has invited, particularly when
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic