Cohen v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 August 1922
• Docket Number: 2910.
• Parties: COHEN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

282 F. 871

COHEN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 2910.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

August 26, 1922

Addison P. Rosenkrans and Stein & Stein, all of Paterson, N.J., for plaintiff in error.

Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N.J., and Walter G. Winne, U.S Dist. Atty., of Hackensack, N.J., for the United States.

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

DAVIS Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error, defendant below, and hereinafter so called, is seeking to reverse the judgment of the District Court, entered on the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of having stolen goods in his possession knowing them to have been stolen, in violation of the Act of February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670 (Comp.

St. Secs. 8603, 8604)). All of the 21 assignments of error were abandoned, except the twelfth and fifteenth, which are based upon the refusal of the learned trial judge to charge the following (seventh and tenth) requests:

'(7) If, after having considered all the other evidence in the case, you then consider the evidence of the good reputation of the defendant, and such evidence of good reputation raises a reasonable doubt in your minds, as of the guilt of the defendant, then you must acquit the defendant.'

'(10) The court instructs that the jury may disregard the entire testimony of a witness, when it is palpable that he has intentionally testified falsely as to some material matter, and is not corroborated by other credible evidence.'

These requests will be considered in reverse order.

At the conclusion of the charge, counsel for the defendant asked the attitude of the learned trial judge on requests from 4 to 10. He replied that:

'The defendant's requests to charge I decline to charge, except in so far as they have been covered in my principal charge. I think I have covered them all.'

In his general charge, after expounding the law, he said:

'You, gentlemen, are the sole judges of the facts in this case.'

And further on, after discussing the evidence, he said:

'In weighing that testimony, you would consider the manner in which it was given, and the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand. The force and weight of their testimony is for you to determine. It is for you to say, after you consider and weigh the evidence as it is given, the credit which you will give to this or that piece of evidence.'

The tenth request was simply another way of stating to the jury that it was their province to determine the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to their testimony. Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 4 Sup.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262; Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 76, 16 Sup.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343; Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 101, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343; 5 Encyclopedia of United States Supreme Court Reports, 119. What the judge said in his charge substantially covered the request, and he was not compelled to charge it again specifically.

As bearing upon the seventh request, in his charge, the judge said:

'He has shown you the place where he lived at Paterson. You have a photograph of his place of business. You have heard the...