United States v. Allard, 11969.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 11969.,11969. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Solomon ALLARD, alias Joseph David; Perry J. Fishman, alias Fisher; Armando P. Gervasoni; Charles Leonard; and Harry Minkoff, Perry J. Fishman, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Berel Caesar, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
John D. Wolley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Trenton, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for the United States.
Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distill liquor illegally in violation of United States liquor laws. The indictment charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violation of the following sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939: 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 2810(a), 2833(a), 3321. In this appeal it is argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
A favorite method of attack on convictions in this and similar cases is to use the analogy of the links of a chain. If the chain has a weak link, the argument runs, the whole chain breaks and the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We think this is not an accurate way to pose the legal problem. The question is whether all the pieces of evidence against the defendant, taken together, make a strong enough case to let a jury find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case the evidence against the defendant was all circumstantial. He was apprenhended at the end of a lane near a dwelling house upon a farm. At the time he was accompanied by another person who was driving the automobile. At this farm illicit distillation was in progress.
Prior to that the defendant had bought an oil burner in Trenton under a fictitious name, paying cash for it. This oil burner was a larger one than usually sold for household use. It was identified by brand name by the seller. In answer to a question whether he could tell whether it was the same oil burner as that found on the premises of the still, he said, "It would seem so." That was as definite as his identification was.
There was evidence that the defendant, accompanied by a man named Minkoff, purchased a certain filter press from an equipment company in New York in the name of a fictitious company and that a filter press of that type was found at the still when it was raided. Minkoff, himself, purchased,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nevels v. State
...States v. Moia , 251 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1958) ; Corbin v. United States , 253 F.2d 646, 649 (10th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Allard , 240 F.2d 840, 841 (3d Cir. 1957) ; Brewer v. United States , 224 F.2d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 1955) ; State v. Logan , 405 S.C. 83, 747 S.E.2d 444, 452 (20......
-
United States v. Nelson
......Press, 336 F.2d 1003, 1010 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Tutino, 269 F.2d 488, 490 (2d Cir. 1959); United States v. Allard, 240 F.2d 840, 841 (3d Cir. 1957); White v. United States, 279 F.2d 740, 748 (4th Cir. 1960); United States v. Comer, 288 F.2d 174, 175 (6th Cir. ......
-
U.S. v. Brodie
...enough case to let a jury find [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Coleman, 811 F.2d at 807 (quoting United States v. Allard, 240 F.2d 840, 841 (3d Cir.1957)). See also United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 600 F.2d 414, 417 (3d Cir.1979) ("`[T]he character and effect o......
-
Nevels v. State
...States v. Moia, 251 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1958); Corbin v. United States, 253 F.2d 646, 649 (10th Cir. 1958); United States v. Allard, 240 F.2d 840, 841 (3d Cir. 1957); Brewer v. United States, 224 F.2d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 1955); State v. Logan, 747 S.E.2d 444, 452 (S.C. 2013); State v. Dor......