Morse v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 December 1918
• Docket Number: 1646.
• Parties: MORSE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

255 F. 681

MORSE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1646.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

December 5, 1918

Nathaniel T. Green, of Norfolk, Va. (Daniel Coleman, of Norfolk, Va on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Hiram M. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Richmond, Va. (Richard H Mann, U.S. Atty., of Petersburg, Va., on the brief), for the United States.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

On conflicting testimony, the defendant was convicted of transporting whisky from Providence, R.I., to a point on Elizabeth river, Va., near Norfolk. In the following concluding instruction, it is contended, the District Judge went beyond his province in expressing his opinion of the guilt of the defendant:

'You are the sole judges of the facts of the case, and should determine the same after due consideration of all the evidence, in the light of attending circumstances, and the reasonable and fair inferences to be drawn from the testimony, and in so doing you should act upon your own independent judgment, uninfluenced by what others, including the court, may think or say. But I would be derelict in my duty if I did not say to you that, from my standpoint and viewpoint, this testimony irresistibly and irrefutably points to the absolute guilt of these defendants.'

The opinion that the accused was guilty was strongly expressed, but the expression was accompanied by an equally strong statement that the jury should exercise their own independent judgment in coming to a verdict uninfluenced by the opinion of the judge. Since the ultimate conclusion was left to the jury, there was no error in the instruction. United States v. Philadelphia & Reading R.R. Co., 123 U.S. 113, 8 Sup.Ct. 77, 31 L.Ed. 138; Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148, 12 Sup.Ct. 171, 35 L.Ed. 968; Doyle v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 147 U.S. 413-430, 13 Sup.Ct. 333, 37 L.Ed. 223; Allis v. United States, 155 U.S. 117, 15 Sup.Ct. 36, 39 L.Ed. 91.

Breese v. United States, 108 F. 804, 48 C.C.A. 36, relied on by defendant, seems to be inconsistent with the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases cited. If that case can be sustained at all as a precedent, it is on the narrow distinction that the District Judge, although clearly charging the jury that they were not bound by his opinion and should exercise their independent judgment, yet used the words 'that in his opinion it was the...