Merrell v. United States, 82-6645
Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-6645,82-6645 |
Parties | Buster Franklin MERRELL v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Between The surveillance, which entailed videotaping and recording activities and conversations, revealed an illegal dice game. As a result, 13 people were charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 * and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Eight co-defendants, the lessor of the premises, the game operator, three dealers and three watchmen, pleaded guilty after 3 days of trial. The remaining 5 co-defendants waived a jury for the rest of the trial. Four of them were acquitted of all charges because they were "mere bettors." The evidence presented by the Government concerning petitioner established that he regularly served coffee to bettors during the gambling sessions; after the sessions he stacked tables and chairs, swept the floor, cleaned ash trays, and repositioned the tables and chairs. Petitioner was convicted of the substantive offense of conducting an illegal gambling business, but acquitted of conspiracy.
On appeal, petitioner claimed that his activities did not justify his conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the proper standard to employ in resolving petitioner's claim is whether he performed "any act, duty or function which is necessary or helpful in operating the enterprise." 701 F.2d 53, 55 (1983). That holding conflicts with the decision in United States v. Boss, 671 F.2d 396, 400 (CA10 1982), where it was held that the proper standard is whether the person performs "a function . . . necessary to the illegal gambling business." That court interpreted the term "conduct" to require "some actual involvement in the gambling operation," ibid., and found that neither a waitress, a bartender, nor a band member could be considered "conductors" under § 1955, id., at 402.
There is a significant difference between activities that are "necessary" to the operation of an illegal gambling establishment and those that are only "helpful." The Boss case involved the question whether waitresses who served drinks to the bettors in the illegal gambling establishment as well as to customers in the adjacent dance hall were "conductors" within the meaning of § 1955. The Tenth Circuit found they were not because their functions were not necessary, but merely helpful. I do not find that case distinguishable from the present one. The difference between conviction and acquittal should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. F.E.R.C., CLARK-COWLITZ
... ... No. 83-2231 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... District of Columbia Circuit ... Argued ... ...
-
Hargrave v. Wainwright
... ... State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee ... No. 84-5102 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Eleventh Circuit ... Nov. 3, 1986 ... ...
-
Mann v. Dugger
... ... Corrections, Respondent- Appellee ... No. 86-3182 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Eleventh Circuit ... April 21, 1988 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Wall
...coffee to bettors and cleaning up after they left was enough to sustain a conviction under § 1955), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1230, 103 S.Ct. 3558, 77 L.Ed.2d 1415 (1983). Defendants argue that these cases preceded the Supreme Court's ruling in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 113 S.Ct. 1......
-
Precluding Government Relitigation of Statutory Interpretations: Clark-cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
...at 369-70. Despite this request, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in July, 1983. Utah Power and Light Co. v. FERC, 463 U.S. 1230 30. Clark-Cowlitz, 775 F.2d at 370. 31. Brief for Petitioner at 16, Clark-Cowlitz. 32. Clark-Cowlitz, 775 F.2d at 370. 33. Opinion and Order O......