Filed: Jul. 07, 1971
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 446 F.2d 224 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edward Elmer DIXON, Appellant. No. 71-1134. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 7, 1971. PER CURIAM: 1 The main objection is that one exhibit was admitted without sufficient foundation. But we hold there was some identification and that the objection to admission was not specific enough. 2 As to the necessity of preserving material footprints, the point is a good jury argument, but such procedure is not a legal req
Summary: 446 F.2d 224 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edward Elmer DIXON, Appellant. No. 71-1134. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 7, 1971. PER CURIAM: 1 The main objection is that one exhibit was admitted without sufficient foundation. But we hold there was some identification and that the objection to admission was not specific enough. 2 As to the necessity of preserving material footprints, the point is a good jury argument, but such procedure is not a legal requ..
More
446 F.2d 224
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Edward Elmer DIXON, Appellant.
No. 71-1134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 7, 1971.
1
The main objection is that one exhibit was admitted without sufficient foundation. But we hold there was some identification and that the objection to admission was not specific enough.
2
As to the necessity of preserving material footprints, the point is a good jury argument, but such procedure is not a legal requirement. United States v. Hull, 9 Cir., 441 F.2d 1165, decided May 10, 1971.
3
Louis L. Deckter (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
4
Stanley L. Patchell (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
