Etie v. United States, 6302.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6302.,6302. |
| Citation | 55 F.2d 114 |
| Parties | ETIE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William H. Scott, of Houston, Tex., for appellant.
H. M. Holden, U. S. Atty., and Douglas W. McGregor, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Houston, Tex.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
The indictment in this case charges George Etie, Douglas Etie, and George Musey with conspiracy (1) to deter by force, intimidation, and threats, H. H. Rouse and Charley Mushmack, who as they knew were and would be witnesses in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, from attending court and testifying to matters pending therein; and (2) to obstruct the due administration of justice by intimidating those witnesses; the scienter being repeated. George Etie was convicted, Douglas Etie was acquitted, and Musey was not placed upon trial.
Both Rouse and Mushmack were called as witnesses for the government, and their testimony, which was uncontradicted, supported the inference that they were induced to leave the jurisdiction of the court by threats of violence. Rouse was under subpoena to appear before the grand jury. He was unable to identify positively the two men who he said made threats against him, and it was doubtless for this reason that Douglas Etie was acquitted. Mushmack testified that he appeared before the grand jury, and was excused until the trial of a criminal case against Musey; that a few days before that trial, and after he had been notified to attend it, he was induced by the threats of George Etie and Musey to leave Texas and go to Detroit. In the course of his testimony, Mushmack said that a witness against the "Etie and Musey outfit" had been killed, but, it appearing that he did not know this of his own knowledge, the court promptly withdrew that statement and instructed the jury not to consider it. The defense offered no testimony.
The principal contention on this appeal is that the indictment does not allege that any particular case was on trial in which Rouse and Mushmack were or were to be witnesses. That contention was raised by demurrer and by a motion for peremptory instruction. It is apparent that the indictment was drawn under sections 135 and 136 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA §§ 241 and 242). The substance of both branches of the indictment is a charge of conspiracy to intimidate witnesses. It is unnecessary to limit the conspiracy to any particular case, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Little-King v. Hayt Hayt & Landau
-
Claunch v. United States
...There being ample evidence to support the verdict, and no reversible error appearing, the judgment appealed from is Affirmed. 1 Etie v. U. S., 5 Cir., 55 F.2d 114. 2 Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; United States v. Buckner, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 921, certiorari......
-
Jenkins v. United States, 16850.
...upon its own motion. Jenkins v. United States, 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 118; Claunch v. United States, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 261; and Etie v. United States, 5 Cir., 55 F.2d 114. No error having been committed by the trial court, the judgment must be ...