Minnella v. United States, 8510.

• Citation: 44 F.2d 48
• Decision Date: 30 September 1930
• Docket Number: No. 8510.,8510.
• Parties: MINNELLA et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

44 F.2d 48 (1930)

MINNELLA et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8510.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 30, 1930.

J. E. Carroll, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant Rosario Minnella.

Verne Lacy, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant Fedele Minnella.

George C. Dyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo. (Louis H. Breuer, U. S. Atty., of Rolla, Mo., and Claude M. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.

Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and OTIS, District Judge.

STONE, Circuit Judge.

This was an indictment, in five counts, against the two above appellants and others in connection with counterfeiting. Counts 1 and 2 were for possession of plates in similitude of those used to print gold certificates of $20 and $100, respectively. Counts 3 and 4 were for possession of forged certificates. Count 5 was for a conspiracy to violate the counterfeiting laws. Counts 3 and 4 were withdrawn from the jury. As to these two appellants, the case was submitted on the remaining three counts. There was a conviction upon all three and concurrent sentences of six years on each count. Since submission of this appeal, the appeal of Fedele Minnella has been dismissed upon suggestion of death.

Four matters are argued here in connection with the appeal of Rosario Minnella.

I. Indictment.

The indictment is attacked through a special demurrer, and several grounds are alleged which differ in accordance with the character of the count.

The objection to counts 1 and 2 is that they are vague, indefinite, and uncertain, in that they do not state (a) the place where the plates were possessed; (b) the kind of certificates, that is, whether they were for coin or bullion; or (c) the series. It is settled in this circuit now that a statement that they were possessed "in the City of St. Louis, Missouri," is proof against demurrer, although it may or may not be subject to a bill of particulars. Myers v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 977. The same reasoning applies to the two other objections.

As the sentences were concurrent and the indictment is good as to counts 1 and 2, the objection to the fifth, or conspiracy, count is not necessary to be determined.

II. Expert Qualifications.

The second matter urged is as to the qualifications of two witnesses who undertook to say that the plates possessed were in similitude of those used by the government. These two witnesses were secret service men of the Treasury Department, both of whom had seen plates of this character in the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and had made casual or slightly more than casual examination of such plates. One of them stated: "I have made no critical study. I have noticed them enough to know a genuine bill or a genuine plate from counterfeit maybe something like that." These plates were introduced and were before the jury. They may or may not have been exact copies of the real plates, but ordinary men could examine them and determine whether bills printed therefrom would or would not resemble genuine bills, and that is really the test of similitude. Exact reproduction is not necessary. Besides this, the witness Mays testified in detail as to exactly how these plates were made. They were made from photographs of genuine bills, and this testimony alone was amply sufficient to have carried the case to the jury if the two government agents had not testified at all. Their testimony was, at most, merely...