Couts v. United States

• Decision Date: 04 March 1918
• Docket Number: 4992.
• Citation: 249 F. 595
• Parties: COUTS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

249 F. 595

COUTS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4992.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 4, 1918

Battle McCardle, of Kansas City, Mo. (Frank L. Barry, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Sam O Hargus, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Francis M Wilson, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.

Before SANBORN, CARLAND, and STONE, Circuit Judges.

CARLAND Circuit Judge.

Upon leave granted, the United States attorney for the Western district of Missouri filed an information in the court below charging the plaintiff in error, hereafter called defendant with the commission of certain acts which it was alleged constituted a contempt of said court. Without making any objection to the information filed against him, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. After a hearing by the court he was found guilty of the contempt charged and sentenced to imprisonment for the period of 60 days in the common jail of Jackson county, Mo.

Assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 present the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding and judgment of the court. As this question was in no wise raised during the trial, it may not be considered. The information was not attacked in the court below, and there is no assignment of error that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a contempt. We are asked, however, to consider objections made here to the information under rule 11 of this court, providing that we may at our option notice a plain error not assigned. There are two reasons why we should not do this in the present case: First, the alleged errors are not plain; and, second, they are of a technical character.

The defendant further alleges that he was found guilty and punished for misbehavior so near the court as to obstruct the administration of justice under section 268 of the Judicial Code; that the act for which he was punished (attempt to influence a juror as to his verdict in a case on trial) is a criminal offense under section 4356, Revised Statutes of Missouri, and section 135 of the Penal Code of the United States; that by sections 21, 22, and 24 of the Act of Congress of October 15, 1914 (38 Stat. 730, c. 323), it is provided as follows:

'Sec. 21. That any person who shall willfully disobey any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any District Court of the United States, or any court of the District of Columbia by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden to be done by him, if the act or thing so done by him be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States, or under the laws of any state in which the act was committed, shall be proceeded against for his said contempt as hereinafter provided.

'Sec. 22. (Paragraph 2) In all cases within the purview of this act such trial may be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury; in which latter event the court may impanel a jury from the jurors then in attendance, or the court or the judge thereof in chambers may cause a sufficient number of jurors to be selected and summoned, as provided by law, to attend at the time and place of trial, at which time a jury

...