Rosenthal v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3669. |
| Citation | 276 F. 714 |
| Parties | ROSENTHAL v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Joseph E. Bien, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
John T Williams, U.S. Atty., and Thomas J. Sheridan, Asst. U.S Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
The plaintiff in error was, together with Morris Rosenthal and Arthur F. Fitch, indicted in two counts, by the first of which they were in effect charged with having, at a certain time and place within the jurisdiction of the court below willfully and feloniously bought and received 39 cases of certain described cigarettes, containing 5,000 each, of the approximate value of $1,462.20, which had theretofore been stolen from a certain described car of the Southern Pacific Company, at the time constituting a part of a shipment of freight in interstate commerce; the defendants well knowing that the cigarettes had theretofore been so stolen.
The second count in effect charged the defendants with having at the same time and place the same cigarettes in their possession under like circumstances and with like knowledge.
The trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty under the first count as to all of the defendants, and not guilty under the second count as to the defendants Morris Rosenthal and Fitch but finding the plaintiff in error guilty under the second.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
ROSS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
As will be seen from the foregoing statement, the plaintiff in error was by the jury found not guilty of having bought and received the cigarettes, but guilty of having them in his possession at the same identical time and place, and with the like knowledge in each instance of their having been stolen goods. The act of Congress upon which the indictment was based makes criminal the 'buying, receiving or having in possession' stolen property, with knowledge of its stolen character. 37 Stat.p. 670 (Comp. St. Secs. 8603, 8604).
It was practically conceded at the trial that the cigarettes were stolen from the railroad company by two of its employees. The evidence showed without conflict that the plaintiff in error was the active agent of the elder Rosenthal, who was his father, and conducted the transaction in question on his behalf with the thieves; and there was ample evidence given to sustain the verdict of guilty against the plaintiff in error under the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. United States
...can be entered thereon. Such verdicts are so meaningless as to be without force. Regina v. Evans, 7 Cox C. C. 151, 157; Rosenthal v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 714; Commonwealth v. Haskins, 128 Mass. 60; Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565. And see Commonwealth v. Lowrey, 158 Mass. 18, 20, 3......
-
United States v. Harris
...137 Cal. 192, 69 P. 1006, 59 L.R.A. 578, 92 Am.St.Rep. 81; People v. Preciado, 1916, 31 Cal.App. 519, 160 P. 1090; Rosenthal v. United States, 9 Cir. 1921, 276 F. 714. Upon a verdict or plea of guilty, when different counts charge the same offense in a different manner, so as to avoid varia......
-
State v. McNeal
...McNeal cannot be both under the influence of drugs and not under the influence of drugs all at the same time. Cf. Rosenthal v. United States, 276 F. 714 (9th Cir.1921) (striking down logically inconsistent verdicts which found the defendant guilty of both selling and receiving the same stol......
-
Morris v. United States
...counts. The evidence required for conviction is not the same. The findings are not inconsistent as was the case in Rosenthal v. United States, (C. C. A.) 276 F. 714, and Peru v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) In Bell et al v. United States, 2 F.(2d) 543, 544, this court said: "When the o......