Berry v. United States
| Citation | 275 F. 680 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2873. |
| Parties | BERRY et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Kevin Kane, of East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiffs in error.
A. B. Dennis, of Danville, Ill., for the United States.
Before BAKER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted of selling beer in violation of the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305). Government agents purchased two bottles containing some sort of liquid and drank the contents. They were permitted, over objection, to say that what they drank was beer. To constitute a violation, the drink would have had to be 'beer' as defined in the act. These government agents were not chemists, attempted no analysis, and established no expert qualifications to measure the alcoholic content of the liquid by drinking it. Their testimony that the liquid was the 'beer' denounced by the act was therefore merely the opinion of unqualified witnesses, and affords no basis for the judgment.
These same agents took two other and similar bottles from the ice chest in defendants' place. They had no search warrant. One of the bottles was marked by one of the agents at the time and later was sent to a government chemist, who made an analysis and at the trial testified, over objection, that the liquid was beer containing alcohol in excess of the amount permitted by the act; and the bottle and contents were admitted, over objection, as exhibits in evidence. So the conviction is plainly bottomed on the exhibit and the chemist's testimony; that is, on evidence which never would have had any existence, but for the government's violation of the restraint put upon it by the Fourth Amendment. Cases of this kind must be judged as if the illegal seizure had never been made.
'The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the court but that it shall not be used at all. ' Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 Sup.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 Sup.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. . . . (Feb. 28, 1921).
The judgment is reversed, with direction to grant a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lowry
... ... 932; ... Rock v. State, Ind. 110 N.E. 212; State v ... Stike, Mo. 129 S.W. 1024; Day v. United States, ... 220 F. 818; Taliaferro v. United States, 213 F. 25; ... People v. Converse, Mich. 121 ... whether an offense is charged. (Berry v. U.S. 275 F ... 680;) the mere judgment of a lay witness as to whether the ... liquor alleged ... ...
-
Lewinsohn v. United States
... ... various occasions described. So far as whisky or wine is ... concerned, this court disposed of this question in the case ... of Sabutis v. U.S., 270 F. 209. But counsel contends ... that this decision was modified by this court in Berry v ... U.S., 275 F. 680. When carefully read, there is no ... conflict between these two cases. In the Berry Case it was ... not even ordinary beer that was under consideration, and the ... witness in no way attempted to qualify himself. In the ... Sabutis Case the beverages sold were whisky ... ...
-
Rosencrance v. State
...hearing as evidence at the trial. Opinion evidence of prohibition agents as to the alcoholic content of liquor is incompetent; Berry vs. U. S. 275 F. 680. We concede the rule to be that one familiar with whiskey after its taste and smell testify whether it is whiskey; Lewinsohn vs. U. S. 27......
-
Albert v. United States
... ... bought and sold as such is evidence in the same direction ... Rose v. United States (C.C.A. 6) 274 F. 245, 247; ... Singer v. United States (C.C.A. 3) 278 F. 415, 418; ... Lewinsohn v. United States (C.C.A. 7) 278 F. 421, ... 425 (distinguishing Berry v. United States, 275 F ... The ... fact that the witnesses who testified to the identity of the ... whisky were not, in express terms shown to be familiar with ... the appearance, smell, taste, and effect thereof did not ... render the testimony insufficient for submission to the ... ...