Brasfield v. United States
Decision Date | 12 October 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 4489.,4489. |
Citation | 8 F.2d 472 |
Parties | BRASFIELD et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Preston & Duncan, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
Sterling Carr, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in error, with seven others, were jointly indicted and charged with a conspiracy to receive unlawfully from carriers, possess unlawfully, and unlawfully transport intoxicating liquors. The evidence, in the case is not before us, but from instructions of the court to the jury, not excepted to, enough appears to indicate that there was no abuse of legal process in lodging a charge of conspiracy against the plaintiffs in error, and that there was evidence tending to show a conspiracy to introduce into the country a large quantity of intoxicating liquors, and to possess and transport the same in violation of the law.
Two exceptions were taken to the instructions given by the court to the jury when the jury were brought into court on the day following that upon which they had retired to deliberate upon their verdict. At that time counsel for the plaintiffs in error took exception to the following portion of the charge: Counsel for the plaintiffs in error further said: To which the court answered:
Error is not assigned to the instructions so excepted to, but error is assigned to the question addressed by the court to the jury, when they were brought into court, as to how they were divided numerically. That assignment is unsupported by any exception taken at the time. For aught that appears in the record, counsel for the plaintiffs in error were willing that the inquiry should be made, and assented thereto. Such being the case, they are in no position now to predicate error thereon. As to the propriety of such an inquiry, we adhere to the views expressed by this court in Quong Duck v. United States, 293 F. 563, and by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bernal v. United States, 241 F. 339, 154 C. C. A. 219 (certiorari denied 245 U. S. 672, 38 S. Ct. 192, 62 L. Ed. 540), that to address such a question to a jury is not in itself reversible error.
Error is assigned to the following instruction: "I am not advising you what way your verdict should be, but I am advising you that the evidence in this case should leave no difficulty with you, if taken hold of in the proper spirit in bringing in a verdict." That assignment, and the exception to the charge that "the case is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Rogers
...to an Allen charge. That one was given, however, appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals which the Supreme Court was reviewing, 9 Cir., 8 F.2d 472. The opinion in Brasfield states the problem in terms of a conflict between the circuits as to whether the Supreme Court's comments in Bu......
-
Ellis v. Reed
...the inquiry made during the jury's second day of deliberations, the trial court had given a form of Allen charge, See Brasfield v. United States, 8 F.2d 472 (9 Cir. 1925), but this fact was not mentioned by the Supreme Court, although argued to it; See 272 U.S. 448, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 3......
-
State v. Fowler
...L.Ed. 345 (1926). In that case the federal district court judge inquired into the division of the jury and gave the Allen charge. 8 F.2d 472 (9th Cir.1925). In a rather short opinion the Supreme Court concluded that it was essential to the fair and impartial conduct of the trial that inquir......
-
Cook v. United States, 16898.
...was again presented and the Ninth Circuit followed its dictum as set out in Quong Duck, and affirmed a conviction in Brasfield v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 472. Certiorari was granted, Brasfield v. U. S., 269 U.S. 550, 46 S.Ct. 201, 70 L. Ed. 407, and Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opini......