Court Opinion

ID: 9443343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:17:59.58314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:27.386940
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
The record showing that a telephone call had been made from the home of Mrs. Folds, appellant’s sister-in-law to a party named Isabella in New York by a person who gave his name to the operator as John Duncan, when neither the called party nor the calling party was otherwise identified, seems to me to have been wholly irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and I think that the defendant’s objection to the admission of that telephone toll ticket in evidence should have been sustained.1 When all is said and done, however, I am left under the firm conviction that this toll ticket had but very slight, if any, effect in influencing the jury, and hence that the verdict and judgment should *939stand. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 751, 764, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557. I concur in the opinion in other respects and in the judgment of affirmance.

. To be admissible the record of a transaction must not only come within the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732, but must also be relevant to the issue on trial.