Opinion

United States v. Ronald Thomas Bohle

  • 445 F.2d 54
  • 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9877
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Filed
Jun 2, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Cummings
On the bench
Cummings, Enoch, Pell
Cited by
133 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.9%

Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Darrell Eugene Lawson, 653 F.2d 299 (1981)

explaining that “where the fact of improper venue is apparent on the face of the indictment, it has been uniformly held that the objection is waived if not presented before the close of the Government’s case” (citing Wright’s Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 306)

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that “where the fact of improper venue is apparent on the face of the indictment, it has been uniformly held that the objection is waived if not presented before the close of the Government’s case” (citing Wright’s Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 306)
  • holding that "federal courts have the inherent power to order a defendant to submit to and cooperate with examination by a Government psychiatrist where the defendant’s insanity has been made an issue in the case”
  • explaining that to seize a plane with a “wrongful intent” means to act with “the general criminal intent present when one seizes or exercises control of an aircraft without having any legal right to do so.”
  • concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it compelled the defendant to submit to a government psychiatrist’s evaluation

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Darrell Eugene Lawson, 653 F.2d 299 (1981)

    United States v. Clark , 728 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2013) ; see also United States v. Bohle , 445 F.2d 54, 59 (7th Cir. 1971) ("An Indictment alleges proper venue when it alleges facts which, if proven, would sustain venue."), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lawson , 653 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1981).
    Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitJul 9, 198120 citing opinionsother groundsRead it

The opinion

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge

(concurring).

For the reasons ably expressed by Chief Judge Sobeloff in Thomas v. Hogan, 308 F.2d 355, 358, 361 (4th Cir. 1962), it is my judgment that the diagnostic materials found in Exhibit A should have been admitted for the truth of the matters asserted. This is the position taken by the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Uniform Rules of Evidence. See Proposed Rule 803(6) and the note thereon. 51 F.R.D. 315 , 420, 426-429.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.