Crowley v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4494.,4494.
• Citation: 8 F.2d 118
• Parties: CROWLEY v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

8 F.2d 118 (1925)

CROWLEY v. UNITED STATES.^*

No. 4494.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 5, 1925.

Frank D. Crowley was convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Law, and he brings error. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.

Otto Christensen, O. N. Hilton, and Verge & Cooney, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and James B. O'Connor, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.

Sterling Carr, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.

Before HUNT, RUDKIN, and McCAMANT, Circuit Judges.

HUNT, Circuit Judge.

Writ of error by Crowley, who, with one Lucas, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Law (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). The indictment charges that Crowley and three others, on or about March 20, 1924, willfully combined and continued thereafter up to the date of the indictment to possess and transport and purchase intoxicating liquor. Overt acts alleged were that Crowley and Sasso and one Lucas went to the plant of the Union Construction Company, at Oakland, with intent to buy and possess certain liquor; that they caused automobiles and trucks to go to a certain place in the yard of the construction company for purposes of loading liquor; that they helped to load the trucks with some 2,500 quarts of liquors.

There was evidence to the following effect: Early in the morning of March 25, 1924, prohibition agents and police officers went to the yards of the construction company and found a Dodge sedan on the side of the road. The watchman of the yards was discovered with intoxicating liquor in a sack. After arresting him the officer went to the edge of the water and saw three men loading a truck. The officers announced who they were, whereupon the men tried to escape. One succeeded, but two were arrested. The officers then found 389 sacks containing bottles of whisky. Crowley was standing at the door of a small shack a short distance away. He was arrested.

After his arrest, Crowley told the police that his name was Dailey, and that he had recently come from Los Angeles in a Dodge car. Crowley took the stand in his own behalf. He said he had known Lucas, a codefendant, for 4 years; that by chance he met him at 10:30 o'clock on the night of March 25; that the two went to a hotel; that Lucas asked him to take him for a ride and wanted to go to the dock, saying that he expected "some stuff"; that he took Lucas to the place where the Dodge car was subsequently found; that he thought Lucas was expecting liquor; that Lucas told him there would be no trouble; that he suspected no trouble; that he saw the piles of sacks; that, while Lucas went to see some one, he went to the shack to get out of the weather, which was raining; that he saw the truck go to the dock.

Plaintiff in error contends that his rights were prejudiced by the admission of certain evidence. A prohibition agent called upon the direct case of the government was...