Bosselman v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 24. |
| Citation | 239 F. 82 |
| Parties | BOSSELMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Pratt Koehler & Boyle, of New York City (Addison S. Pratt and Francis E. Hamilton, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
H Snowden Marshall, of New York City (F. E. Carstarphen and Joseph A. Burdeau, Asst. U.S. Attys., both of New York City of counsel), for the United States.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of conviction upon an indictment charging that the defendant, in violation of section 135, U.S. criminal Code, had corruptly influenced, obstructed, and impeded the due administration of justice by directing and requesting one Wieland and one Barberi to make certain erasures, changes, and insertions in the books and records of Andreas C. Bosselman & Co. material to a matter under inquiry by the grand jury. The section reads:
Andreas C. Bosselman & Co. is a corporation of which the defendant at the time in question was president and treasurer. Between March 10 and 24, 1914, the grand jury had under consideration two indictments against him, the first charging him with a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of section 37 of the United States Criminal Code (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 10200), by importing certain obscene bisque figures, and the second charging him with the shipment to Florida of certain obscene bisque figures, in violation of section 245, U.S. Criminal Code (section 10415). These two indictments were found by the same grand jury at the same session which found the indictment on which the defendant was tried.
At the opening of the trial the United States Attorney offered these two indictments in evidence, and they were admitted by Judge Sessions over the defendant's objection and exception, for the purpose of showing what subject the grand jury were investigating at the time when the defendant was charged with corruptly impeding the administration of justice. We see no error in this. The Bosselman Company's salesmen forwarded orders taken by them on the road to the office in New York. The stenographer there made two copies of every order, one of which was kept by the bookkeeper and the bill to the customer prepared from it, and the other was given to the shipping clerk to enable him to make proper entries of shipment in the shipping book.
Sales of the figures in question to three separate customers in Florida were proved. Clara Wieland, the bookkeeper, in pursuance of a subpoena duces tecum served upon her, produced before the grand jury the Bosselman Company's shipping book and sales lists, upon which erasures and changes appeared in the entries relating to these three orders. The original bills in two of the sales lists called expressly for these figures; the bill in the case of the third sale had been lost. It also appeared that changes in the shipping book were made by Barberi, the shipping clerk, while the grand jury were investigating but in respect to the changes in the sales lists the bookkeeper, Miss Wieland, did not think she had made them at that time, but thought that she must have done so when she was posting, after making out the bill or checking up stock, and before she was called...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Howard
...1975); United States v. Weiss, 491 F.2d 460 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 833, 95 S.Ct. 58, 42 L.Ed.2d 59 (1974); Bosselman v. United States, 239 F. 82 (2d Cir. 1917); United States v. Knife, 371 F.Supp. 1345, 1346 (D.S.D.1974) (dictum; the court applied ejusdem generis to § 1503); Unit......
-
United States v. Oil Co Oil Co v. United States
...witness rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Di Carlo v. United States, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364, 367, 368; Bosselman v. United States, 2 Cir., 239 F. 82, 85; Felder v. United States, 2 Cir., 9 F.2d 872. He sees the witness, can appraise his hostility, recalcitrance, and evasiven......
-
United States v. Grunewald
...error to instruct the jury that they might, if they chose, believe the testimony of the co-conspirators or accomplices. Bosselman v. United States, 2 Cir., 239 F. 82; United States v. Rosenberg, 2 Cir., 195 F.2d 583, certiorari denied Sobell v. United States, 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 21, 97 L......
-
U.S. v. Partin
...word ('corruptly')." Accord, United States v. Cohen, 202 F.Supp. 587, 588 (D.Conn.1962). Broadbent, in turn, relied on Bosselman v. United States, 239 F. 82 (2d Cir. 1917). In Bosselman the court answered a contention that defendant's request that another person alter certain documents was ......