Marin v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4451.,4451. |
| Citation | 10 F.2d 271 |
| Parties | MARIN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
H. A. Behrendt, of Detroit, Mich. (Milton A. Behrendt, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Delos G. Smith, U. S. Atty., and James J. Spillane, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Detroit, Mich.
Before DONAHUE, MACK, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with Charles Phillips, Holmes Morton, and William Sagamore for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). Morton and Sagamore entered pleas of guilty. Marin stood mute, and the court directed a plea of not guilty to be entered for him. It does not appear from the record that Phillips was arrested or tried upon this indictment. The trial of Marin resulted in a verdict of guilty, upon which verdict the court imposed sentence.
There are a number of assignments of error, but counsel for plaintiff in error summarizes these as follows: First, that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; second, error in the admission and rejection of evidence; third, error in the charge; fourth, error in the conduct of the trial.
There was positive, direct, and substantial evidence offered by the government tending to prove a conspiracy between Marin and his codefendants to procure, sell, and transport intoxicating liquors, in violation of the provisions of the National Prohibition Act. The question of the credibility of the witnesses offered by the government to prove this fact was a question for the jury under proper instructions from the court. The motion to direct a verdict was properly overruled.
It is further claimed that the court erred in cross-examining, and in permitting the defendant to be cross-examined, in reference to a former indictment against him for a like offense. The defendant having testified upon direct examination that he had formerly been indicted for a like offense and that the indictment was dismissed, it was entirely proper to permit him to be cross-examined upon the same subject-matter, if for no other reason than to determine whether he had disclosed upon direct examination all the facts and circumstances in reference to the former indictment, and whether that indictment had in fact been dismissed. It also follows that, the jury having been advised by the testimony of the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Gordon
...77 F.Supp. 908, 917, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 140, 143. Cf. Bundy v. U. S., D. C.Cir., 193 F.2d 694; Marin v. U. S., 6 Cir., 10 F.2d 271. Some of these cases were decided before the Criminal Rules of Procedure were promulgated and some of them after that Other courts have......
-
United States v. Graham, 15131
...accused discloses a former conviction, cross-examination developing its full circumstances will not be held prejudicial. Marin v. United States, 10 F.2d 271 (CA 6, 1926). We should further observe that the defendants Graham did not, in the District Court, move for a new trial on the grounds......