Hicks v. United States, 5838.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 5838.,5838. |
| Citation | 173 F.2d 570 |
| Parties | HICKS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. A. Hall, Jr., of Richmond, Va. (Leith S. Bremner, of Richmond, Va., and John P. Flanagan, of Powhatan, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
George R. Humrickhouse, U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va. (Golden N. Dagger, Carl F. Pattavina, and John J. O'Keefe, Jr., Attys., Dept. of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of endeavoring to influence a juror in violation of section 241 now § 1503 Title 18 of the United States Code. The gist of the charge was that he feloniously and corruptly endeavored to influence a juror and the evidence was that he induced one Leslie Earl Martin to commit the crime of which the latter later was convicted and which was before this Court in Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 166 F.2d 76. The questions raised by the appeal relate to the sufficiency of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of the testimony as to the transactions occurring between Martin and the juror. All are entirely lacking in merit. The sufficiency of the indictment is sustained by a long line of decisions of this Court. Nye v. United States, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 73; Ong v. United States, 4 Cir., 131 F.2d 175; Bersio v. United States, 4 Cir., 124 F.2d 310; Center v. United States, 4 Cir., 96 F.2d 127; Hill v. United States, 4 Cir., 42 F.2d 812; Belvin v. United States, 4 Cir., 12 F.2d 548, 550; Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 299 F. 287, 288. In the case last cited, the rule here applicable was stated by the late Judge Rose in the following language: .
The evidence establishes that appellant, an attorney at law, approached Martin, a filling station operator, and told the latter that he wished to see one of the jurors serving in the trial of the Rakes case to see if he would hang the jury; that he asked Martin to see the juror and see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. United States
...statutes, see opinion of Chief Judge Parker in Nye v. United States 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 73. See also, from the same circuit, Hicks v. United States, 4 Cir., 173 F.2d 570. Since the submission of the case, attorneys for appellants have filed a supplemental memorandum of authorities. They point ......
-
United States v. Miriani
...U.S. 965, 85 S.Ct. 658, 13 L.Ed.2d 559, reh. denied, Fry v. United States, 380 U.S. 927, 85 S.Ct. 887, 13 L.Ed.2d 815; Hicks v. United States, 173 F.2d 570 (4th Cir.1949), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 1501, 93 L.Ed. 1748; Wigmore, Evidence § 1766 (1940 Fifthly, the defendant contend......
-
United States v. Grow
...1963); Kumpe v. United States, 250 F.2d 125 (5 Cir. 1957); Robinson v. United States, 33 F.2d 238 (9 Cir. 1929). 17 Hicks v. United States, 173 F.2d 570 (4 Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 1501, 93 L.Ed. 1748; Frank v. United States, 220 F.2d 559 (10 Cir. 1955). See also Uni......
-
U.S. v. Mitchell, 74-1546
...to bribe a juror held sufficient even though third party neither approached nor ever intended to approach the juror); Hicks v. United States, 173 F.2d 570 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 1503, 93 L.Ed. 1748 (1949) (evidence that defendant asked a third party to arrange a me......