Casella v. United States
Citation | 449 F.2d 277 |
Decision Date | 29 September 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 18447.,18447. |
Parties | Peter CASELLA v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
D. William Subin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Camden, N. J. (Frederick B. Lacey, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant.
Edward C. Toole, Jr., Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges, and KRAFT, District Judge.
This is a proceeding brought by Casella pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to relieve himself of judgments of conviction and of sentence as set out hereinafter. He was indicted on a four count indictment1 filed April 15, 1958, along with Santore. It will be observed that Casella and Santore were indicted as principals but that an aider and abettor is liable as a principal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2.2 In the Casella-Santore trial, Marshall, a narcotics agent of the United States, testified that Santore told him and other narcotics agents that upon inquiry of Santore as to where were the cans of opium, Santore stated that "the opium was still being cooked down south, and not all the cans were ready for delivery." (Emphasis added). This was the only statement or "explanation", if the latter term may be justly used, respecting the origin of the drugs.
The Trial Judge (Madden, J.) after reciting in substance the four counts of the indictment, in charging the jury, stated: "In common parlance * * * the first count is the count which charges the sale of narcotic drugs, the second count is the count which charges receipt, concealment or the buying of certain narcotic drugs, the third count charges the sale of narcotic drugs which weren't in the original stamped package, tax-stamp container, and the fourth count is the count which charges the sale of narcotic drugs not in pursuance of a written order form as designated by the United States Treasury Department."
As to 21 U.S.C. Section 174, Judge Madden went on to say: * * *'
Judge Madden also said: 4 (Emphasis added.)
Nothing more was said by the Court in its charge relevant to the issues of importation or possession or presumptions related to possession by Santore.
Casella and Santore were found guilty on all counts and Casella was sentenced as appears from the judgment of sentence thus: 5 Casella appealed to this court, principally on the ground of entrapment but the judgments of conviction were affirmed.6
In 1969 Casella filed the present Section 2255 motion to vacate the judgments of conviction and sentence imposed on him in 1959. After hearing the Trial Judge in the Section 2255 proceeding (Cohen, J.) ordered "that the judgment and sentence of * * * Casella on Criminal Indictment No. 151-58, be and the same are hereby vacated.",7 and further ordered "that he shall stand trial or otherwise plead to the aforesaid indictment."8
We have quoted the words of Agent Marshall in testifying to the statement made to him by Santore when all of the ordered cans of opium had not been delivered that the opium was still being cooked "down south".9 Judge Cohen addressed himself to the issue of importation, stating in part: 10
As we read the record of the trial before Judge Madden and Judge Cohen's opinion in the Section 2255 proceeding, we think it is clear that both Judges viewed Santore's statement as some evidence of non-importation of the drugs and we conclude that they were correct in doing so. Judge Cohen also stated: "In the instant case the essential element of the guilty knowledge of illegal importation of narcotic drugs was predicated upon `possession,' which in turn depended upon a finding of aiding and abetting one who did in fact have possession. * * *" 304 F.Supp. at 760. But Judge Cohen went further and concluded that the language quoted from Judge Madden's charge compelled the jury to find importation into the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Keane
...is no rule that the reading of a statute as part of a charge to the jury is per se insufficient. See generally Casella v. United States,449 F.2d 277, 283 (3d Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 929, 92 S.Ct. 981, 30 L.Ed.2d 803 (1972); United States v. Powell, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 449 F.2d ......
-
State v. Smith
...by jury guaranteed him by the federal and state constitutions. U.S.Const., amend. VI; Me.Const. art. I, § 6. See Casella v. United States, 449 F.2d 277, 283 (3d Cir. 1971). Therefore, we respectfully We submit that the judgment of the court below should be vacated and the case remanded for ......