John Arthur Luomola v. United States

Appellant was convicted by a jury on one count of smuggling marihuana into the United States. Jurisdiction existed below pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 176a, ( 19 U.S.C. §§ 1461 , 1484 and 1485 (and exists here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

But two errors are urged. First: that the court erred in not admonishing the jury to disregard certain remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in argument to the jury. Second: that the court erred in not granting the defendant a continuance, after a motion for new trial had been denied, and before sentence, so that new counsel of defendant’s choice rather than court appointed counsel could represent defendant.

We agree with the trial judge that there was no need to admonish the jury by reason of counsel’s argument; that the prosecution’s remarks fall well within the permissible bounds of legitimate argument to a jury in response to an argument advanced by defense counsel.

On the second issue, appellant was given his full right of allocution, not once but several times. He advised the trial judge that he wished to have two witnesses (one a doctor) testify on his behalf before sentence. The doctor was not to testify with respect to appellant’s…