United States v. Donald H. Eberhardt, 657 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
United States v. Donald H. Eberhardt, 657 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Javier Amaya (ca8, 2013-09-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Javier Amaya (2×)
8th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
United States v. Eberhardt, 657 F.2d 221, 222 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Johnson, 466 F.2d 537, 538 (8th Cir.1972) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jack Ernest Baugh
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Launius, 575 F.2d at 772; cf. Pratt, 657 F.2d at 221.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Donald H. EBERHARDT, Appellant
81-1430.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Aug 26, 1981.
657 F.2d 221
John M. Lee, U. S. Atty., Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Minn., Minneapolis, Minn., Dwight Pringle, Legal Intern, for appellee., Scott F. Tilsen, Asst. Federal Defender, D. Minn., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Heaney, Henley, McMIL-LIAN, Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
[*222] PER CURIAM.

Defendant Donald H. Eberhardt was charged in a two-count indictment of disposing of over $50,000 of United States Treasury notes and bonds knowing that they were stolen in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315. Eberhardt was jury tried and convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of thirty months on each count, the sentence on Count II to run concurrently with the sentence on Count I.

On appeal, Eberhardt claims the district court [1] erred in (1) failing to acquit for lack of proof of involvement or movement of the notes and bonds in interstate commerce, and (2) denying the jury’s request for written copies of the instructions. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find Eberhardt guilty of the offense charged. And this Circuit has consistently held whether or not the jury should be provided with written instructions is a determination better left to the discretion of the trial judge. Here, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s denial of request for written instructions. The appeal is thus affirmed pursuant to Local Rule 14.

1

. The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.