Edward R. Hudson v. United States, 229 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Edward R. Hudson v. United States, 229 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles of the Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc. (nysd, 1986-06-11) · Strongest negative: Ronald Couch v. United States (cadc, 1956-06-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Ronald Couch v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1956 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Gadsden v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 162 , 223 F.2d 627, 632 ; but cf. Hudson v. United States, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 153 , 229 F.2d 36 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles of the Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · confidence medium
Standard & Poor’s Corp. v. Commodity Exchange, Inc., 683 F.2d 704, 708 (2d Cir.1982); see General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chem. & Oil Corp., 786 F.2d 105 , 109 (2d Cir.1986); Sonora Cosmetics, Inc. v. L’Oreal S.A., 631 F.Supp. 626, 629 (S.D.N.Y.1986). 4 . 513 F.2d 716 (9th Cir.1975). 5 . 513 F.2d at 722 (emphasis added). 6 . 299 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1962). 7 . 229 F.2d at 36; see Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Int'l Inc., 724 F.2d 357 , 361 (2d Cir.1983). 8 . 513 F.2d at 718 . 9 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." William C. Coleman v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1964 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Gadsden v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 167-168 , 223 F.2d 627, 632-633 (1955) (alternative ground), with Hudson v. United States, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 153 , 229 F.2d 36 (1956) (per curiam). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward R. HUDSON, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
12575_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jan 12, 1956.
229 F.2d 36
Mr. Rex K. Nelson, Washington, D. C., (appointed by the District Court) for appellant., Mr. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Alfred Hantman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Prettyman, Bazelon, Danaher.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant Hudson was indicted, tried and convicted on a charge of manslaughter. As of the time of the alleged offense he and two others had been drinking together for an undetermined period of time. They were near the sea wall at the Tidal Basin when they became involved in some sort of altercation. Hudson shoved the other two men into the water. One swam to safety, and the other drowned.

Upon this appeal Hudson urges (1) that the indictment was faulty; (2) that the evidence was insufficient; and (3) that his counsel, and not he, was asked to speak just prior to sentence. He did not attack the indictment in the trial court, [1] and, in any event, we think the indictment was amply sufficient to advise him of the offense, enable him to defend, and protect him against subsequent jeopardy. The evidence was ample to support the view that Hudson caused the death in the midst of a physical altercation and by an act reasonably calculated to cause serious bodily harm. As to the pre-sentence statement, both Hudson and[*37] his trial attorney were present and stood together before the bench, and the attorney made a brief plea for clemency. The court did address counsel by name in making its inquiry, but, so long as both were present and what was expected was made plain, we think all reasonable requirements of the law were met. We find no error in the foregoing respects.

Affirmed.

1

. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 12(b) (2), 18 U.S.C.A.