Goodloe v. United States
| Citation | 188 F.2d 621 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 10696.,10696. |
| Parties | GOODLOE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Richard M. Roberts, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and Arthur J. McLaughlin and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
William A. Goodloe, the appellant, and Alice L. Galusha were indicted jointly by a grand jury in the District of Columbia. The first count of the indictment accused Goodloe alone of attempting to perform an abortion on Gloria M. Huffman. The second count charged both with conspiring to offer a bribe to Gloria to absent herself during the grand jury investigation of the abortion. The third count charged the two with the substantive crime of attempting to bribe the witness. A fourth count was dismissed. Alice L. Galusha was granted a severance.
Goodloe was tried alone on all three counts and was convicted under each. He was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on the first count and for two years on each of the other two. The sentences with respect to the second and third counts were to run concurrently after that on the first had been served. Goodloe appeals.
Among the several assignments of error is the District Court's denial of appellant's motion for a mistrial because one of the jurors took notes of the testimony at intervals throughout the trial. We have not had occasion heretofore to pass on the propriety of permitting note-taking by a juror and the question appears to have arisen only infrequently in other jurisdictions. Our view is that the matter is one for the sound discretion of the trial court, a conclusion reached by most of the courts, both federal and state, which have considered the question. United States v. Carlisi, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1940, 32 F.Supp. 479; Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Kelly, 8 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 569; United States v. Davis, C.C.W.D.Tenn. 1900, 103 F. 457, 470; see Note, 154 A.L.R. 878 (1945). It does not appear in the present case that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial because of the action of the juror in taking notes of the testimony.
Appellant also earnestly argues that the District Court should have directed acquittal under the third count which charged Goodloe and Alice L. Galusha with the substantive crime of attempting to bribe a government witness. The contention is that no part of this offense took place in the District of Columbia. The point is not well taken if the evidence showed that the attempt to bribe was commenced, continued or completed here, even though most of the acts relied upon to constitute the crime were committed in Baltimore. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3237.
The evidence in that connection tended to show Alice L. Galusha called on Miss Huffman at her home in Baltimore on April 20, 1950, and offered to pay her expenses if she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Porter
...375 U.S. 836, 84 S.Ct. 79, 11 L.Ed.2d 66 (1963), reh. denied, 375 U.S. 949, 84 S.Ct. 353, 11 L.Ed.2d 280 (1963); Goodloe v. United States, 188 F.2d 621 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 819, 72 S.Ct. 35, 96 L.Ed. 619 (1951); Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. Kelly, 84 F.2d 569 (8th Reservitz has n......
-
United States v. Raff
...C.I.T. Credit Corp., 1952, 344 U.S. 218, at page 221, 73 S.Ct. 227, at page 229, 97 L.Ed. 260. 8 See e. g., Goodloe v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 188 F.2d 621; United States v. Marcus, supra, 166 F. 2d at page 502; Lunsford v. United States, supra, 200 F.2d at page 238; Camin......
-
U.S. v. Williams
...a criminal act lies in the district where the act was begun, continued or completed. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a); see also Goodloe v. United States, 188 F.2d 621 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 819, 72 S.Ct. 35, 96 L.Ed. 619 (1951). For a Meat Inspection Act offense, venue lies where defenda......
-
State v. Kipf
...the better educational backgrounds jurors now possess make earlier concerns with the practice irrelevant. See, also, Goodloe v. United States, 188 F.2d 621 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied 342 U.S. 819, 72 S.Ct. 35, 96 L.Ed. 619 (1951); Watkins v. State, 216 Tenn. 545, 393 S.W.2d 141 Courts whi......