Kelly v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3986. |
| Citation | 297 F. 212 |
| Parties | KELLY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
L. V Ray, of Seward, Alaska, for plaintiff in error.
Sherman Duggan, U.S. Atty., of Anchorage, Alaska, and Harry G McCain, of Cordova, Alaska, and Julian A. Hurley, of Anchorage, Alaska, Asst. U.S. Attys.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under the White Slave Traffic Act (36 Stat. 825 (Comp. St. Secs 8812-8819)). The errors assigned have been summarized as follows: Error in the admission of testimony, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, error in the refusal to instruct as requested, misconduct of one of the jurors and incompetency of the same juror.
We will first consider the objection to testimony, for, if the testimony complained of was competent and relevant, its sufficiency to support the verdict does not present a debatable question. It appears from the testimony that two women journeyed from Seattle, Wash., to Anchorage, Alaska, at the instance of the plaintiff in error, the one to sing and the other to play the piano, in a pool and billiard hall, bowling alley, and place of amusement operated by the plaintiff in error at the latter place. The court admitted testimony, over objection, tending to show the acts and conduct of the two women and the plaintiff in error, immediately after the arrival at Anchorage, and the admission of this class of testimony is the error assigned. The burden was upon the government to prove that the two women were transported from the state of Washington to the territory of Alaska for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for some other immoral purpose, and testimony tending to show the acts and conduct of the parties concerned after the arrival of the women at Anchorage was clearly competent to that end, and, as already stated, if competent, the testimony was ample to support the verdict. Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U.S. 326, 33 Sup.Ct. 285, 57 L.Ed. 528, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 911; Suslak v. United States, 213 F. 913, 130 C.C.A. 391; Beyer v. United States, 251 F. 39, 163 C.C.A. 289; Blackstock v. United States (C.C.A.) 261 F. 150; Carey v. United States (C.C.A.) 265 F. 515; Elrod v. United States (C.C.A.) 266 F. 55.
Beyond the mere statement of our conclusion, it would serve no useful purpose to state in detail all that transpired between the parties in Alaska. The charge of the court covered every phase of the case, and was extremely favorable to the plaintiff in error....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sorrentino
...intent and purpose of defendant in bringing her there. See Pine v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 353, 357; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 1924, 297 F. 212, 213; Wilson v. United States, Tedesco v. United States, Neff v. United States, Reginelli v. United States, Defendant raises th......
-
Tedesco v. United States
...in reaching their conclusion the jury were entitled to consider what Miss Bates did after arriving at her destination. Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 212, 213. The facts herein recited render unnecessary any discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction under t......
-
Shama v. United States
...the circumstances in evidence. Carey v. United States, 8 Cir., 265 F. 515; Hamilton v. United States, 8 Cir., 255 F. 511; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 212; Ghadiali v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 236; Elrod v. United States, 6 Cir., 266 F. 55; Nokis v. United States, 8 Cir., 25......
-
Petition of Schafer
...the court is without jurisdiction to take that action. United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 S. Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 212. Compare United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354; Roberts v. United States, 320 U.S. 264, 64 S.Ct. 113. ......