Christopoulo v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 February 1916
• Docket Number: 1391.
• Parties: CHRISTOPOULO v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

230 F. 788

CHRISTOPOULO v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1391.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 2, 1916

John I Cosgrove, of Charleston, S.C. (W. Turner Logan, of Charleston, S.C., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

J Waties Waring, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Charleston, S.C. (Francis H. Weston, U.S. Atty., of Columbia, S.C., on the brief), for the United States.

Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.

KNAPP Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted, under section 79 of the Criminal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321 35 Stat. 1103 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 10247)), of falsely representing himself to be a citizen of the United States. The record shows these facts:

In March, 1915, there was an enrollment of voters for a municipal primary in the city of Charleston, S.C. This enrollment was conducted by the city Democratic executive committee under rules and regulations which were authorized or prescribed by the statute laws of the state. Among these rules was one 'that if a naturalized citizen he must show his papers before being permitted to enroll. ' Defendant is a native of Greece, but at the time in question was not a naturalized citizen of the United States, although he had declared his intention to become a citizen more than two years before. He appeared at the proper place of enrollment and inquired of those in charge of the books as to his right to enroll. In compliance with the rule just quoted he produced his intention papers, which were examined by one of the officers in charge, and thereupon, after making oath that he was duly qualified to vote, he was allowed to enroll. The person who made the examination stated at the trial that he himself did not know the difference between citizenship papers and intention papers; but defendant admitted on cross-examination that he knew he was not a citizen of the United States, that he had only declared his intention to apply for citizenship, and that an additional application was necessary before he could become a citizen. He also admitted that he had not voted in previous years because he was not a citizen. Shortly after enrolling defendant was arrested and bound over for trial by the United States commissioner. The next grand jury was organized on the morning of the 1st of June, and was discharged, after returning a number of indictments, in the afternoon of the following day. The defendant's case was called for trial the next morning, the 3d of June, at which time, and before pleading, he moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the foreman of the grand jury, one John Cart, had theretofore been convicted, upon a plea of guilty, of a disqualifying crime; and the denial of that motion is the principal ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment. It seems that Cart had been indicted in March, 1910, for a violation of the act to regulate commerce, in that he had made false reports of the weights of certain articles shipped for transportation in the years 1908 and 1909. He pleaded guilty to this offense and was punished with a fine of $750.

For the purposes of this case we shall assume that the motion to quash was seasonably made (Crowley v. United States, 194 U.S. 461, 24 Sup.Ct. 731, 48 L.Ed. 1075), although defendant was arrested and bound over more than two months before, and apparently might have ascertained at a much earlier date the alleged disqualification of Cart. We also lay aside the suggestion that the indictment is valid, even if Cart was disqualified, because 20 grand jurors were present when the indictment was found and no claim is made that any of the others were not qualified. The question then remains whether Cart...