Case Information

CRESCENT CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James CAMERON, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Albert Kraus, Inc., Appellee.

No. 20020.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1963.

324 F.2d 375

on the rights of appellees in the name "Alpine Lodge" in Macon, Georgia. Thompson v. Alpine Motor Lodge, Inc., 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 497. Both names were used in the operation of motels located approximately one hundred miles apart.

These questions were answered in the affirmative. There is ample support in the record and under the applicable law for the pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the judgment thereon for appellees. Thus, it is that the judgment appealed from should be and is affirmed.

Albert W. Copeland, J. H. Berman, Montgomery, Ala., for appellant, Godbold, Hobbs & Copeland, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel.

George B. Azar, Montgomery, Ala., for appellee, Azar & Campbell, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel.

Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented is whether the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Mercantile Paper Company extended credit to Albert Kraus, Inc., rather than to Albert Kraus individually. A reading of the record convinces us that the district court was not clearly erroneous, indeed, that it was not erroneous at all. The judgment is Affirmed.

Case Information

Carlos Garza DE LUNA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19037.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1963.

The rehearing is denied Nov. 18, 1963.

James R. Gillespie, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

Russell B. Wine, K. Key Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before BROWN, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In studying this case we were well aware of the procedural difficulties inherent in our decision. We could not overlook them: the concurring opinion brings out clearly the basic difficulties, including the possibility of a conspiracy of co-defendants to promote a mistrial by having one of them comment upon the failure of another co-defendant to testify. The co-defendant's right to comment is not tangential but is an essential, if complicating, element in the problem. We weighed these considerations against an accused's Fifth Amendment right not to testify and his right to be free of comments on the exercise of his constitutional right to silence. We concluded that in criminal trials a fair interpretation of the Constitution prohibits all reference to an accused's failure to testify. The overriding consideration in all criminal cases is measured justice according to the Constitution. The inconvenience of a severance and the possibility of a mistrial if there should be a joint trial of co-defendants do not tip the scales for the Government when an accused's right to silence is in the balance.

The rehearing is denied.

BELL, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would grant the petition for rehearing for the reasons stated in my special concurring original opinion.

Case Information

Roland E. SIMCOX, Appellant, v. Jesse B. HARRIS, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee.

No. 17497.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1963.