Ramsey v. United States, 13248.

• Decision Date: 18 October 1957
• Docket Number: No. 13248.,13248.
• Parties: Sanford RAMSEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

248 F.2d 740 (1957)

Sanford RAMSEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13248.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

October 18, 1957.

William E. Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.

James M. Meek, Knoxville, Tenn., John C. Crawford, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge.

The grand jury in the Eastern District of Tennessee returned an eight-count indictment against appellant, Sanford Ramsey, and his son, Charles Sanders Ramsey (known as "Sonny" Ramsey), charging violation of various sections of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the illicit distillation of alcohol and to the possession and concealment of liquor on which the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws of the United States had not been paid. The father and son were tried separately. The latter was tried first by the court, jury trial having been waived. After hearing the evidence, the court overruled a motion to suppress, found the son guilty as charged, and reserved sentence pending the later trial of the father.

The father, Sanford Ramsey, was found guilty by verdict of a jury and was sentenced to total imprisonment of 40 months, with minimum statutory fines. His motion for judgment of acquittal was overruled, as was, likewise, a motion for a new trial.

Appellant charges that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of all the evidence and that the trial court also erred in declining to charge the jury, as requested by appellant's attorney, that the jury could not guess or conjecture with respect to the evidence. However, at the conclusion of the charge to the jury, appellant's attorney stated that he had no objection to any part of the charge, which had made it crystal clear that the defendant (appellant) could not be convicted except upon evidence establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that conviction could not rest upon circumstantial evidence, except where "the circumstances relied upon * * * point so unerringly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than that of his guilt."

The conviction of appellant was based upon the testimony of three witnesses, two of whom Griffin and Petre were investigators for the Alcohol Tax Unit and the third Murr was an employee of an electric system. The evidence revealed that the officers, Griffin and Petre, were armed with a lawful warrant to search the residence of Charles ("Sonny") Ramsey son of appellant which consisted of an old two-story unpainted frame dwelling of about six rooms, located in Cocke County, Tennessee. When the search warrant was executed, the officers discovered in the basement of that dwelling house three stills: one 1,000 gallon copper-pot still; and two 500 gallon copper-pot stills. They also found three gallons of untax-paid moonshine whiskey, 500 gallons of sugarmeal mash, 500 pounds of granulated sugar, flake stands, copper coils, connections, pressure tank...