Amendola v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 227.,227. |
| Citation | 17 F.2d 529 |
| Parties | AMENDOLA v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Anthony J. Ernest and John B. Johnston, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
William A. De Groot, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Harry Chiert, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Before MANTON, and LEARNED HAND, Circuit Judges, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
LEARNED HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
A majority of the court is of the opinion that upon the evidence there was a question of fact whether the transaction between Amendola and Marinelli was an outright sale, or whether Amendola deputed Marinelli to sell the drug for him in Brooklyn as his servant or agent. That was the only question raised upon the trial, and, had it not been for the sentence, we should not have taken any other of our own motion. It was a technical matter, of not the least substance, on which side of the East River Amendola should be tried; if there was error in the conduct of the trial, affecting that alone, we should hold him strictly to the record.
But for reasons which we shall state in a moment the result has been in the judgment of us all a miscarriage of justice, and we think we should notice errors, though not raised by the defendant. Even though the evidence justified a submission of the case to the jury, the question was not presented to them in the colloquial charge of the judge, and we may be sure that they did not take it for themselves. The result is that the defendant was convicted without any determination by the jury as to the character of the transaction on which his guilt in law depended under the indictment actually found. This was an error in any view, and while a majority of us should not, as we have said, have raised it, if the result as a whole had been just, we think the sentence gives the defendant a substantial complaint, even against formal errors.
The indictment was in four counts for the same transaction, a single sale in Brooklyn. This was laid as a conspiracy, as an unregistered sale, as a sale to a buyer who did not have the prescribed form, and as an unlawful possession. All these are in form separate crimes, and the judge had power to impose a separate sentence upon each cumulatively, making it in all seventeen years, if he chose. In fact, he did so cumulate the sentences to ten...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co.
...540; United States v. Mitchell, supra; cf. dissenting opinion in United States v. Pape, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 778, 783. 76 Amendola v. United States, 2 Cir., 17 F.2d 529, 530; cf. United States v. Hoffman, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 416; United States v. Trypuc, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 900, 902. But see comment ......
-
United States v. Rubenstein, 358.
...v. Mitchell, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 1006 and 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 831; United States v. Gutterman, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 540. 19 Amendola v. United States, 2 Cir., 17 F.2d 529, 530. 20 Thus in United States v. Hoffman, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 416, the court, while noting the severity of the sentence (page 422), ......
-
United States v. Kravitz, 13180-13183.
...U.S. 941, 69 S.Ct. 1519, 93 L.Ed. 1746. 16 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1048 et seq. (3d ed. 1940). 17 Counsel relies on Amendola v. United States, 2 Cir., 1927, 17 F.2d 529, 530; United States v. Mazzochi, 2 Cir., 1935, 75 F.2d 497; and United States v. Pagano, 2 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 682, for thi......
-
United States v. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, ETC.
...excessive, the court will not ignore errors which, except for the excessiveness, might not have justified reversal. Amendola v. United States, 2 Cir., 17 F.2d 529 at page 530; Alabama G. S. Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 968; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 8 ......