Downs v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3221.,3221. |
| Citation | 3 F.2d 855 |
| Parties | DOWNS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Merritt Lane and John W. McGeehan, Jr., both of Newark, N. J., and George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiffs in error.
Walter G. Winne, U. S. Atty., of Hackensack, N. J.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
In the court below, Downs, Davis, Klein, and Stack were convicted on an indictment charging them with conspiring (see section 37 of the Criminal Code Comp. St. § 10201) to commit an offense against the United States (see section 117 of the Criminal Code Comp. St. § 10287) in asking for and receiving from one Urynowicz the sum of $2,500, "with intent to have the decision and action of the said Le Roy Davis and John F. Downs, influenced in a question, matter and proceeding which was at that time brought before them in their official capacity, to wit, the due and legal serving of a search warrant for the premises of the said Konstantz Urynowicz, * * * and the seizing, detaining and retaining of intoxicating liquors found unlawfully possessed upon the said premises, and the making of true and correct return to the said search warrant of all intoxicating liquors * * * found on the said premises, and the reporting upon their actions in the premises, to the federal prohibition director of the state of New Jersey, and the making of complaint and prosecution of the said Konstantz Urynowicz for the unlawful possession of such intoxicating liquors, they, the said John F. Downs and Le Roy Davis, each being then and there persons acting for and on behalf of the United States in an official capacity, to wit, as federal prohibition agents, under and by virtue of the authority of the Department of the Treasury of the United States, and particularly under and by virtue of the authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the government of the United States."
In addition to the above charges contained in the indictment, there were set forth with particularity overt acts which, in substance, stated that in order to effect the conspiracy charged the four defendants went to the premises of Urynowicz, where Davis and Downs showed him their legal search warrant; that they discovered on his premises a large quantity of unlawfully possessed intoxicating liquor of more than one-half of 1 per cent. alcohol and fit for beverage purposes; that they corruptly demanded and received from Urynowicz $2,500, with the promise and understanding made to him by all the defendants, that the search warrant would be returned by Davis and Downs with the statement that no intoxicating liquors had been found on his premises, and the liquors found would not be seized by Davis and Downs; that Davis and Downs would not report to the federal prohibition director of New Jersey the finding of such liquor, and would not complain against or prosecute Urynowicz for the unlawful possession of the same.
Motions to quash were overruled, and pleas entered, and on trial all the defendants were found guilty and thereafter sentenced to penitentiary imprisonment and fines. The several defendants have sued out a writ of error to this court.
An examination of the proofs shows the matters charged and the allegations made substantially as follows:
After the occurrence, Urynowicz confessed to the entire transaction — his bribery of the officers, and his payment of the $2,500, in the presence and at the instance of all four, to one of their number. Coming to the actual payment of the money, his testimony was:
There was additional testimony which, among other things, proved there were 50 cases of whisky on the premises, the presence of all four men, talk with Davis by an outsider about how much money they were asking from Urynowicz, and the official federal position of Davis and Downs. On the part of the defendants, Davis and Downs testified they were federal officials intrusted with the service of the warrant, and that they found no liquors on the premises, that Klein and Stack were not there, and that they did not know them. The latter testified they were not there the day of the search, and all four men denied having received the money testified to by Urynowicz.
The principal questions raised by the several defendants are: First, that there was no evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
...271, 59 L.Ed. 504, L.R.A.1915D, 281;United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Downs v. United States, 3 Cir., 3 F.2d 855;Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 541;State v. Myers, 36 Idaho 396, 211 P. 440;Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N.E. 842;People v. M......
-
United States v. Raff
...1945, 153 F.2d 247, at page 250; United States v. Marcus, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 497, at pages 500, 501, 503; Downs v. United States, 3 Cir., 1925, 3 F.2d 855, at page 857; United States v. Winnicki, 7 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 56, at page 58. As to the scope of coverage, see United States v. Ho......
-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
... ... McDermott, 255 Mass. 575 ... Commonwealth v. Snyder, 282 Mass. 401 ... Logan v ... United States, 144 U.S. 263. Brown v. United ... States, 150 U.S. 93. The jury, however, were not ... States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140. United States v ... Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78. Downs v ... [311 Mass. 112] ... United States, 3 ... F.2d 855. Farnsworth v. Zerbst, ... ...
-
United States v. Lavery
...v. Angelo, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 247, 250; United States v. Marcus, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 497, 500, 501, 503; Downs v. United States, 3 Cir., 1925, 3 F.2d 855, 857; United States v. Martinez, D.C.M.D.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 403; United States v. Debrow, 1953, 346 U.S. 374, at page 376, 74 S.C......