Martin v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 2213. |
| Citation | 299 F. 287 |
| Parties | MARTIN et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
J Raymond Gordon, of Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiffs in error.
B. J Pettigrew, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Charleston, W.Va. (Elliott Northcott, U.S. Atty., and Ellis A. Yost, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
Martin and Allwood, the plaintiffs in error, were defendants below, and will be so styled here. In the District Court a one-count indictment was returned against them and two other men, by name Ratliff and Patterson, respectively. The indictment in apt words charged them with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States; that is to say:
'To unlawfully, willfully and knowingly violate the Act of Congress of October 28, 1919, particularly title 2 thereof, the short title of which act of Congress is the National Prohibition Act and which act of Congress is commonly known as the Volstead Act, in that they would unlawfully, willfully and knowingly sell, barter, transport, deliver, furnish, keep, and possess distilled spirits and intoxicating liquors otherwise than as authorized in the aforesaid act of Congress known as the National Prohibition Act, and in violation of the provisions of the said National Prohibition Act.'
A sufficient specification of an overt act followed. The indictment was returned on November 21, 1923. Five days later Martin and Allwood were arraigned, and, having pleaded not guilty, were put upon their trial. Their codefendants, Ratliff and Patterson, were accepted as witnesses for the government. The defendants complain that after the opening statements, both on behalf of the government and the defendants, had been made, the defendants asked to withdraw their pleas, and to enter a demurrer to the indictment and a motion to quash it, but that the court declined to permit the withdrawal of their plea or the filing of a demurrer or a motion to quash, on the ground that the application came too late. The learned judge added that in his opinion the indictment was good, even as against an objection seasonably interposed. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has so held. United States v. Rudner, 281 F. 516. See, also, Violette v. United States (C.C.A.) 278 F. 163. Our view is the same.
In an indictment, the mere multiplication of words never does any good, and often leads to a miscarriage of justice. The sufficiency of a criminal pleading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. United States
...the offense charged was committed. * * * Rev. Stat. U. S. § 1025; Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408, 411." Martin & Allwood v. United States (4th Circuit) 299 F. 287, decided May 19, The language italicized means that even if the trial court erred in overruling a demurrer to the form ......
-
United States v. Missler
...of Maryland. We are of the opinion that these are not fatal infirmities. This court, speaking through Judge Rose, in Martin v. United States, 299 F. 287 (4 Cir. 1925), stated the rule followed in this circuit in determining the validity of an The sufficiency of a criminal pleading should be......
-
United States v. Atlantic Commission Co.
...U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; Johnson v. United States, 4 Cir., 5 F.2d 471; Hill v. United States, 4 Cir., 42 F.2d 812, 814; Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 299 F. 287, 288. An application for severance and separate trial is addressed to the discretion of the Court, and the general rule is that ......
-
Feinberg v. United States
...286 F. 315, 318; Cabiale v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 769, 770; United States v. Jones (D. C.) 298 F. 131, 132; Martin v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 287, 288; Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S. 239, 244, 40 S. Ct. 205, 64 L. Ed. The plaintiffs in error contend that the evidence w......