Jamail v. United States, 6186.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6186.,6186. |
| Parties | JAMAIL et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis J. Dibrell, of Galveston, Tex., for appellants.
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 appellants, Jamail and Fletcher, were convicted upon an indictment which charged them in separate counts with unlawfully possessing, selling, and transporting intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (title 2, § 3 27 USCA § 12). They were acquitted on another count which charged them with conspiracy to commit those substantive offenses. Jamail assigns error on the court's refusal to direct a verdict in his favor on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence against him, and on rulings which admitted, over his objection, documentary evidence which disclosed that a telephone and a number of electric lights were installed in a room which he used in connection with and to carry on an illegal traffic in intoxicating liquor. He also joins with Fletcher in assigning error on rulings of the trial court relating to the conspiracy count, to objections made to the argument of government counsel to the jury during the trial, and to the refusal to instruct the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence.
The government relied for conviction upon evidence to the following effect: The room in which the telephone and lights were installed was being maintained as a barroom. On the date alleged in the indictment a prohibition agent went into this room where he offered to buy from Fletcher four quarts of whisky and two cases of beer. Fletcher went out on the sidewalk where Jamail was, talked with him, and then came back and made the sale, telling the agent to drive around the corner where delivery was made. Jamail admitted to the agent that the place of business which he had just been in was his. During the argument, counsel for the government stated in substance that the evidence for the prosecution stood unimpeached, and that defendant had not introduced any witnesses to contradict it.
The jury were authorized to infer that the liquor came from Jamail's premises, was taken around the corner, and delivered by Fletcher with Jamail's consent. It, of course, makes no difference which one of them physically delivered the liquor. It is enough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sperling, 237
...States v. Hodorowicz, 105 F.2d 218, 220 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 584, 60 S.Ct. 108, 84 L.Ed. 489 (1939); Jamail v. United States, 55 F.2d 216, 217 (5th Cir. 1932). One who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of a crime is punishable as a principal......
-
Singleton v. State
... ... '(2) That the Assistant States Attorney, in his closing statement to the jury was guilty of misconduct by ... State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 586. And lastly, the United States Supreme Court has finally held that such comment by a prosecutor, ... United States, (CCA Fla.1963), 324 F.2d 178; Jamail ... ...
-
Davis v. United States
...1963); Fowler v. United States, 310 F.2d 66, 67 (5th Cir. 1962); Smith v. United States, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956); Jamail v. United States, 55 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1932). The facts and circumstances of each case must be carefully analyzed to determine "whether the language used was manife......
-
Spivey v. United States
...withdrew them, and the Judge admonished the jury not to consider them. United States v. Dilliard, 2 Cir., 101 F.2d 829; Jamail v. United States, 5 Cir., 55 F.2d 216; Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 17 S.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799; Cf. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Reid, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 30. Nei......