Grillo v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | 6264.,No. 6256,6262,6256 |
| Citation | 336 F.2d 211 |
| Parties | Henry GRILLO, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Saul GLASSMAN, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Paul A. GORIN, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass., with whom Paul T. Smith, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for Henry Grillo, appellant.
James D. St. Clair, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for Saul Glassman, appellant.
Francis J. DiMento, Boston, Mass., with whom DiMento & Sullivan, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for Paul A. Gorin, appellant.
John J. Curtin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., and William F. Looney, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., were on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
This court on a previous appeal considered and rejected a number of contentions advanced by these appellants. We remanded, however, for a new trial for what we considered to be an error in the charge with respect to the burden of proof on the issue of entrapment. Gorin v. United States, 313 F.2d 641 (C.A.1, 1963). At the second trial the court charged in accordance with our opinion but the appellants fared no better and they have again appealed.
We reaffirm our previous holdings. Only a few matters require consideration on this appeal.
In our opinion on the previous appeal we set out the charges laid against these defendants-appellants and the facts adduced at the first trial in some detail. Repetition here would serve no useful purpose. It will suffice to say that entrapment was a principal if not the major issue at both trials. On the previous appeal the appellants contended that the evidence established entrapment as a matter of law whereas the government contended that the evidence failed even to raise the issue. We rejected both contentions and agreed with the district court that the evidence as to entrapment raised an issue for the jury. The same contentions are presented on this appeal and again we reject them. The principal difference between the evidence at the two trials is that the defendant Glassman elected to testify at the first trial but did not take the stand at the second. This weakened the evidence of entrapment. Perhaps it weakened that evidence to the point of supporting the government's contention. But we can give the appellants the benefit of the doubt, as the district court did by submitting the issue to the jury a second time.
Another contention now advanced is that the court below erred in not striking and withdrawing from the consideration of the jury certain alleged overt acts on the ground that the evidence established that the alleged conspirators who perpetrated the acts had been entrapped into committing them. We reject the contention. The most that can be said of the evidence is that the government agents left the door unlocked for the perpetrators of the acts to lift the latch and walk in. That is not entrapment.
Another contention is that the court below erred in admitting in evidence a verbatim copy of notations on a piece of yellow paper found in Glassman's possession when he was arrested.
Glassman was taken into custody on a warrant of arrest, the validity of which is not challenged, by an inspector of the Internal Revenue Inspection Service of the United States Treasury Department and a Deputy United States Marshal. The arresting officers took Glassman to the United States Marshal's office in Boston and asked him to put his personal effects on a desk. Glassman complied. The inspector then asked Glassman to empty the contents of his wallet. Glassman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Edwards 8212 88
...v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 346 F.2d 812, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 862, 86 S.Ct. 124, 15 L.Ed.2d 100 (1965); Grillo v. United States, 336 F.2d 211 (CA1 1964), cert. denied sub nom. Gorin v. United States, 379 U.S. 971, 85 S.Ct. 669, 13 L.Ed.2d 563 (1965); Robinson v. United States......
-
United States v. Ramos Colon
...Gorin v. U. S., 313 F.2d 641 (CA 1, 1963), cert. den. 374 U.S. 829, 83 S.Ct. 1870, 10 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1963), appeal after remand 336 F.2d 211 (CA 1, 1964), cert. den. 379 U.S. 971, 85 S.Ct. 669, 13 L.Ed.2d 563 (1965); U. S. v. Ross, 468 F.2d 1213, 1217 (CA 9, 1972); U. S. v. Valentine, supra,......
-
United States v. DeLeo
...390 U.S. 968, 88 S.Ct. 1082, 19 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1968); Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1967); and Grillo v. United States, 336 F.2d 211 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 971, 85 S. Ct. 669, 13 L.Ed.2d 563 (1965). We would add United States v. Caruso, 358 F.2d 184 (2d Cir......
-
Com. v. Campbell
...Mass. 224, 229, 207 N.E.2d 284. See also Commonwealth v. Lehan, 347 Mass. 197, 205, 196 N.E.2d 840, and cases cited; Grillo v. United States, 336 F.2d 211, 213 (1st Cir.). Cf. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486, n. 12, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d Other contentions raised by the defend......