Adams v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 10158.,10158. |
| Citation | 128 F.2d 820 |
| Parties | ADAMS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joel B. Mallet, of Jackson, Ga., for appellant.
T. Hoyt Davis, U. S. Atty., and T. Reese Watkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
Henry Ingram Adams and five others were indicted at the May Term, 1941, of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division. The indictment, No. 5243, was in four counts, each count charging a substantive offense in violation of the Internal Revenue Laws relating to the manufacture of spirituous liquors, R.S. §§ 3258, 3279, 3281, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code §§ 2810, 2831, 2833. At the November Term, 1941, an indictment in one count was returned against Henry Ingram Adams, John Milton Adams, and five others, charging them with conspiring to violate the Internal Revenue Laws contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 88. The latter indictment, No. 5328, alleged three overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
On November 7, 1941, when the two indictments were called for trial, Henry Ingram Adams and John Milton Adams through counsel, and in open court, moved for a bill of particulars in the conspiracy case. Thereupon, in the presence of the defendants, Government counsel gave defense counsel an oral resume of the evidence upon which the Government would rely for a conviction; and the court ruled that the Government would be limited in its presentation of evidence to proof of the overt acts detailed in response to the demand for a bill of particulars.
On motion of the United States Attorney, the court ordered the indictments, No. 5243 and No. 5328, consolidated for trial. Motion for a continuance was then made by the defendants on the ground of surprise in that they and their counsel had not had sufficient knowledge of the details of the conspiracy charge. They further alleged that two of their witnesses were absent and that their counsel had not had sufficient time to prepare the case for trial. The court overruled the motion for a continuance, and the defendants were put to trial.
Henry Ingram Adams was found guilty on all four counts of Indictment No. 5243; and he and John Milton Adams were both found guilty of the conspiracy alleged in Indictment No. 5328. Henry Ingram Adams was fined $300 and was sentenced to serve a term of eighteen months in the reformatory under No. 5243, and a term of eighteen months under No. 5328, the sentences to run concurrently. John Milton Adams was sentenced to serve a term of two years on his conviction under the conspiracy indictment, No. 5328. Both of the named defendants have appealed.
The court committed no error in refusing to grant the motion for a continuance of the conspiracy case. The defendants were apprised of the conspiracy indictment on October 31, 1941, and on the following day, November 1, 1941, they employed counsel to represent them. The case was not called for trial until a week later on November 7, 1941. Both cases are simple ones, and the allegations of surprise, and lack of time for preparation for trial and the securing of absent witnesses, are not borne out by the record. It rested within the sound discretion of the trial court to either grant or refuse to grant a continuance, and such discretion was in no wise abused. Morris v. United States, 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 957; Hart et al. v. United States, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 128; Boyer v. United States, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 857; Hamil v. United States, 5 Cir., 298 F. 369.
A like observation may be made with reference to the demand by defendants for a bill of particulars, and the giving of a concrete verbal answer to the request by counsel for the government. A careful reading of the record brings to light the fact that such verbal information contained nothing hidden, and nothing which the defendants did not already know about. Moreover, defense counsel had an entire week within which to seek information and ask for a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Miriani
...(1940); United States v. Decker, 304 F.2d 702 (6th Cir.1962); United States v. Koenig, 300 F.2d 377 (6th Cir.1962); Adams v. United States, 128 F.2d 820 (5th Cir.1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 632, 63 S.Ct. 61, 87 L.Ed. The judgment is affirmed. * The Honorable Henry L. Brooks, then Chief Ju......
-
United States v. Knight
...v. Vrilium Products Company, 185 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 947, 71 S.Ct. 531, 95 L.Ed. 683; Adams v. United States, 128 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 632, 63 S.Ct. 61, 87 L.Ed. 510; Spevak v. United States, 158 F.2d 594, 597 (4th Cir. 1946), cert. den......
-
United States v. Decker
...the discretion of the District Judge. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 446, 452, 453, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377; Adams, et al. v. United States, 128 F.2d 820, 821 (C.A. 5, 1942). We find no abuse of discretion and emphasize that counsel have not specified any prejudice that came to their cl......
-
Heflin v. United States
...it was within the trial court's discretion to refuse a continuance. Davenport v. United States, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 157; Adams v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 820; Woods v. United States, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 63. See also Annotation, 41 A.L.R. 1530. And certainly there was no strong probability ......