United States v. Thomas Carlton Bleckley, 475 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Thomas Carlton Bleckley, 475 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jesse Wright, Jr., A.K.A. Jessie Wright (ca11, 2004-12-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jesse Wright, Jr., A.K.A. Jessie Wright
11th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Bleckley, 475 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jesse Wright, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Bleckley, 475 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Thomas Carlton BLECKLEY, Defendant-Appellant
72-3362.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 30, 1973.
475 F.2d 1225
C. Frank Strickland, Jr., Gainesville, Ga., for defendant-appellant., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Dyer, Simpson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict that Bleckley wilfully and by means and use of a dangerous weapon, a 30-30 rifle, forcibly assaulted a United States Deputy Game Warden who was engaged in the performance of his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111.

Bleckley’s sole point on appeal is that the Government failed to prove his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.

Bleckley’s defense of insanity at the time of the offense was properly submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence under a correct charge conforming to the standards of Blake v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 908.

“As we said in Blake ‘the evidence could go either way.’ Here the jury found that it went against the defendant. The jury need not be bound by defendant’s expert testimony, especially since there are ‘material variations between the experts themselves * * *.’ Mims v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 135, 143. It was for the jury, not the Court.” United States v. O’Neal, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 695, cert. denied, 401 U.S. 917, 91 S.Ct. 898, 27 L.Ed.2d 818.

Affirmed.