never posed the alleged error until oral argument.
The law appears well settled that where a defendant fails to make timely request for a particular charge and does not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure pertaining to instructions, and the charge given was full and adequate, specification of error that the jury should have been instructed differently need not be considered. Rule 30, 18 U.S.C.A.; Fowler v. United States, 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 860.
I find it appropriate to state, however, that this member of the court has steadfastly adhered to the procedure of not discussing the facts in its instructions to the jury. I have pursued this policy in the interest of complete impartiality. I have found that a discussion of the facts invites misconceptions on the part of jurors who tend to interpret a judge's views by the emphasis placed on certain facts. To avoid the remotest possibility of any such misconception, I have meticulously avoided any discussion of the facts, and have left the interpretation, gathering and filtering of the evidence to the strict province of the jury.
The United States Courts have left the decision of whether to discuss the facts in the court's charge to judicial discretion. McGlothan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 170 F.2d 121; Vicksburg & Meridian R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U.S. 545, 7 S. Ct. 1, 30 L. Ed. 257. It has been my experience that in order that strict neutrality and unswerving impartiality be maintained, said discretion should be exercised with the view to avoid judicial comment on the facts.
Upon a most careful review of the record and exhibits, and cognizant, as I must be, of the prerogative of the jury to resolve issues of credibility, and giving the government the benefit of all legitimate inferences to be drawn from the evidence, it is my judgment that the verdict of the jury is supported by substantial and ample evidence and that the verdict of guilty as to each count must be sustained. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680; United States v. Nystrom, 3 Cir., 237 F.2d 218.
I further conclude that no error was committed in the conduct of the trial and the verdict of the jury should stand.
An appropriate Order is entered.
And Now, this 17th day of July 1957, motion of Merle D. Long, defendant, for judgment of acquittal and/or new trial will be and hereby is refused.
It is Further Ordered and Decreed that Merle D. Long, defendant, appear before this member of the court on Thursday, August 8, 1957, at 10:00 A.M., D.S.T., for sentencing.