Jewett v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4899.,4899. |
| Citation | 15 F.2d 955 |
| Parties | JEWETT et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Crandell & Crandell and William P. Guthrie, both of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs in error.
Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Atty., and C. T. McKinney, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before RUDKIN, Circuit Judge, and DIETRICH and KERRIGAN, District Judges.
The plaintiffs in error, who will hereafter be referred to as the defendants, were convicted upon an indictment charging them with conspiracy to violate various provisions of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq.).
The first assignments raise the question of the sufficiency of the charge. The indictment sets forth clearly that on or about the 1st day of August, 1923, at the city of Seattle, the defendants willfully and unlawfully conspired together to violate the provisions of the National Prohibition Act; it being the plan, purpose, and object of the conspiracy, and the object of the defendants in so conspiring, unlawfully to possess and sell intoxicating liquors, including whisky, within the district and division where the indictment was brought, and also unlawfully to conduct and maintain a common nuisance at certain premises in Seattle, by keeping for sale and selling at such place whisky and other intoxicating liquors. It further charges that the conspiracy was and is a continuing one, covering a period from the 1st day of August, 1923, to the time of the presentment of the indictment. Thereupon it is averred that after the formation of the conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof, and to effect its object, one or more of the conspirators committed divers overt acts, 22 in number, each of which is described with considerable particularity.
The charge so clearly meets all the essential requirements of an indictment that we pass the assignments without further comment; they are devoid of merit.
There was no error in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendants. There was abundant evidence to justify the conclusion reached by the jury.
It is also contended that in its instructions the court erred in commenting upon and arguing the facts. Conceding that the instructions are within the rules of established practice in the federal courts (Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 135, 41 S. Ct. 53, 65 L. Ed. 185), counsel urges that they are in contravention of a provision of the Constitution of the state of Washington prohibiting judges from charging jurors with respect to matters of fact, or commenting thereon. But the practice in federal courts in criminal cases is not subject to regulation by state laws.
The remaining assignments challenge rulings touching the use by government witnesses of written memoranda, both while they were giving their direct testimony and upon cross-examination. These witnesses had from time to time, after having had a transaction with one or more of the defendants, made memoranda thereof in notebooks or other forms of record. Immediately prior to being called as witnesses they resorted to these records, and, as they testified, made notes therefrom, and brought such notes to the witness stand. Learning that the notes were so made, counsel for the defendants repeatedly objected to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...memory as refreshed, his memory may be refreshed by any kind of stimulus, "a song, or a face, or a newspaper item." Jewett v. United States, 15 F.2d 955 (9th Cir., 1926). It was error to refuse to permit a medical witness to refresh his memory from x-ray photographs which he had not persona......
-
United States v. Riccardi
...recollection recorded". And in Delaney v. United States, 3 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 917, we referred with approval to Jewett v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 955, 956, wherein the Court "It is one thing to awaken a slumbering recollection of an event, but quite another to use a memorandum......
-
State v. Peacock, 217
...stimulated to recall the event, for when so set in motion it functions quite independently of the actuating cause.' Jewett v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 955, 956. It is customary for such notes to be made available to the opposing counsel so that he may examine and cross-examine r......
-
State v. Weston
...wide range of material which may be used to refresh a witness' memory is reflected in the following language from Jewett v. United States (C.A.9, 1926), 15 F.2d 955, 956:"[I]t is quite immaterial by what means the memory is quickened; it may be a song, or a face, or a newspaper item, or a w......
-
Memory Restored or Confabulated by Hypnosis-is it Competent?
...(2d Cir.), cert, denied, 329 U.S. 806 (1947)). See also Nicoli v. Briggs, 83 F.2d 375, 378 (10th Cir. 1936); Jewett v. United States, 15 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1926); Gray v. United States, 14 F.2d 366, 367-68 (8th Cir. 4. See, e.g., State v. Mena, 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P.2d 1274 (1981); Peop......
-
§ 21.03 REFRESHMENT; TYPES OF WRITINGS
...of the writing, the identity of the writing's author, or the truth of the writing's contents."7--------Notes:[2] Jewett v. United States, 15 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1926).[3] Baker v. State, 371 A.2d 699, 705 (Md. App. 1977).[4] See United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 471-72 (6th Cir. 2......
-
§ 21.03 Refreshment; Types of Writings
...of the writing, the identity of the writing's author, or the truth of the writing's contents."6 --------Notes:[1] Jewett v. United States, 15 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1926).[2] Baker v. State, 371 A.2d 699, 705 (Md. App. 1977). [3] See United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 471-72 (6th Cir.......