Booth v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 230. |
| Parties | BOOTH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Edward Lynn, for plaintiff in error.
Lyman M. Bass, for defendant in error.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of having devised a scheme to defraud by sending communications through the mail, in violation of section 5480 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696), and the assignments of error raise two points:
1. After a conviction and sentence under indictments numbered 315, 316, and 317, which had been consolidated by order of the court below, the judgment was reviewed by this court upon writ of error, and was reversed, and remanded to the court below 'for a new trial, and such proceedings as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States ought to be had,' and a mandate accordingly was issued to the court below. Subsequent to the filing of this mandate in the court below, a further indictment was found by the grand jury, numbered 366. The latter indictment charged offenses some of which were committed at later dates than those which were the subject of the earlier indictments.
Before the trial the district attorney moved to consolidate the latter indictment with the others. This motion was granted by the court; and against the objection of the defendant, a new trial was had upon all the indictments consolidated, and the defendant was convicted upon all.
We think there was no error in allowing the consolidation of the indictments and the trial upon all the counts. Section 1024 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the consolidation of such indictments, notwithstanding the aggregate offenses are more in number than can be joined in one indictment under section 5480 (In re Henry, 123 U.S. 372, 8 Sup.Ct. 142, 31 L.Ed. 174), and, this being so, it is immaterial that all the offenses charged may not have been committed within the same six months. No more than three, committed within the same six months, can be joined in one indictment, and this is the only respect in which section 5480 infringes upon the ordinary procedure or pleading in criminal cases.
The terms of the mandate did not restrict the power of the court below to the trial of the original issues. They left the court free to proceed as though the cause had never been tried.
2. We have examined the record with care to ascertain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Romano
...States v. Paroutian, 319 F.2d 661 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 981, 84 S.Ct. 494, 11 L.Ed.2d 426 (1964); Booth v. United States, 154 F. 836, 837 (2d Cir. 1907). Furthermore, even if the Court might properly dismiss defendants' present motions as not timely filed, the Court would b......
-
State v. Hall
...and the State was rightly permitted to introduce new evidence. State v. Newkirk, 49 Mo. 472; 10 Current Law, 237; 12 Cyc. 646; Booth v. United States, 154 F. 836; Dolans United States, 69 C. C. A. 287. (2) When an indictment is quashed, set aside or reversed, the time during which it was pe......
-
In re Thomlinson Co.
...154 F. 834 In re THOMLINSON CO. et al. No. 77.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.May 13, 1907 ... Edward ... A. Haid (R. N ... ...
-
Emanuel v. United States
... ... broad authority conferred by section 1024 (U.S. Comp. St ... 1901, p. 720). It is contended that this was error because of ... the provision of section 5480 above quoted. This is no new ... question, and the decisions in different districts are not ... uniform. But this court in Booth v. U.S., 154 F ... 836, 83 C.C.A. 552, expressly decided the precise question ... holding that in cases like this the court had the power under ... section 1024 to consolidate; and we are of the opinion that ... the new authorities which defendant here presents do not call ... for the ... ...