Delaney v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 354,354 |
| Citation | 68 L.Ed. 462,44 S.Ct. 206,263 U.S. 586 |
| Parties | DELANEY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Laurence M. Fine, of Chicago, Ill., David V. Cahill and Elijah N. Zoline, both of New York City, and M. M. Doyle, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals to review a judgment of that court affirming a conviction and judgment of petitioner upon two indictments in which he was charged, with others, with a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138 1/4 et seq.). The overt acts manifesting the conspiracy and accomplishing it were enumerated.
The indictments were numbered 348H and 350H. The defendants in No. 348 were Thomas A. Delaney, Joseph Ray, Joseph Dudenhoefer, Sr., Joseph Dudenhoefer, Jr., Joseph Dudenhoefer Company, a corporation, and Joseph Giudice. The defendants in No. 350 were the same parties as above, with the addition of Walter M. Burke.
The Dudenhoefers pleaded guilty, Giudice died, and Burke was not tried. Delaney, petitioner, and Ray, were alone proceeded against, the indictments being consolidated for the purpose of trial, and resulted in a verdict of guilty, upon which there was a judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years and a fine of $10,000 imposed.
Both defendants joined in a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, composed of Judges Baker, Evans, and Page. The court affirmed the judgment without opinion.
A petition for rehearing was made by petitioner (Ray not joining), based on the ground that he was convicted upon inadmissible and uncorroborated hearsay testimony, the insufficiency of the evidence otherwise to establish his guilt, and that he was deprived of a fair trial by the attitude of the trial judge. The petition was denied.
Thereupon a petition was filed to vacate the orders theretofore entered and to set the case for reargument. The petition recited the fact of the indictments and the proceedings and conviction upon them, and that certain other indictments were filed, charging one Arthur Birk and others with violation of the Prohibition Act, and that Birk made a motion to quash the indictment, which motion was heard, considered, and denied by Evan A. Evans, one of the judges of the District Court. It was further represented that a motion was made by Walter M. Burke, a codefendant with petitioner, to quash the indictment against him (Burke), which was also heard by Judge Evans and denied by him.
It was further represented that Birk was placed on trial before Judge Evans, found guilty, and sentenced to confinement in a penitentiary and to pay a fine, and that after the proceedings thus detailed, including those against petitioner, Judge Evans sat with the other judges who had presided at the trial of petitioner, and took part in their deliberations respecting the penalties to be inflicted upon petitioner and his codefendants. That Judge Evans was also one of the Judges in the imposition of penalties upon the various defendants.
It was represented that by reason of the participation of Judge Evans as thus detailed, he became and was disqualified to sit in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and that the order of that court purporting to affirm the judgment of the District Court was entered without jurisdiction and was void, and that a rehearing and reconsideration of the case should have been ordered.
In support of the motion, section 120 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1112) was cited. Its provision is as follows:
'That no judge before whom a cause or question may have been tried or heard in a district court, or existing Circuit Court, shall sit on the trial or hearing of such cause or question in the Circuit Court of Appeals.'
The section seems not to have attracted the attention or appreciation of petitioner until he had experimented with other means of review and relief from the conviction adjudged against him. It may be that he did not thereby waive the section which may express a policy and solicitude in the law to keep its tribunals free from bias or prejudgment, rather than to afford a remedy to a litigant, yet it would seem that he should not be permitted to assume the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schneiderman
...if the testimony which is admitted tends even remotely to establish the ultimate fact." See also Delaney v. United States, 1924, 263 U.S. 586, 590, 44 S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462; Wiborg v. United States, 1896, 163 U.S. 632, 657-658, 16 S.Ct. 1127, 41 L.Ed. 289; United States v. Von Clemm, 2 Ci......
-
State v. Erwin
... ... in defense of another prosecution for the same offense. See ... [120 P.2d 294] ... States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed ... 588; United States v. Hess , 124 U.S. 483, 8 ... 504, 219 P. 1106; People ... v. Linde , 131 Cal.App. 12, 20 P.2d 704; ... Delaney v. United States , 263 U.S. 586, 44 ... S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462; International Indemnity Co ... ...
-
Bourjaily v. United States
...demonstrate that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is steeped in our jurisprudence. In Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 590, 44 S.Ct. 206, 207, 68 L.Ed. 462 (1924), the Court rejected the very challenge petitioner brings today, holding that there can be no separate Con......
-
People v. Brawley
...since, as we have seen, at least Brawley's first two statements to Glaze came within that exception. Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 590, 44 S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462, rejected a contention that the right of confrontation was violated by the receipt at a federal trial of testimony reg......
-
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
...15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 20 S.Ct. 993, 44 L.Ed. 1150 (1900); Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 44 S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462 (1924). Beginning with Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), the Court began to ......
-
ARTICLE VIII HEARSAY
...15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 20 S.Ct. 993, 44 L.Ed. 1150 (1900); Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 44 S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462 (1924). Beginning with Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), the Court began to ......