Sodo v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 21 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31471,31471 |
| Citation | 94 N.E.2d 325,406 Ill. 484 |
| Parties | SODO v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Otto Kerner, Jr., United States Attorney, John P. Lulinski, Benjamin D. Caruso, and Dewey G. Hutchinson, all of Chicago, for appellant.
Horatio Tocco, of Chicago, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the city court of Calumet City, entered March 15, 1949, admitting the appellee, Anthony Edward Sodo, to citizenship in the United States of America, and from an order entered October 18, 1949, denying the motion of the United States for a new hearing of the petition for naturalization of the petitioner on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The appellee filed his petition for naturalization in the city court of Calumet City, was questioned by a naturalization officer and made an affidavit that he had been arrested only four times in his life. The affidavit was filed with the petition. On January 10, 1947, he made another sworn statement in which he admitted fourteen arrests and stated that during his entire working life in this country, with the exception of two years, he had been engaged in the operation of speakeasies, taverns and similar enterprises. The arrests disclosed in the second affidavit were in response to questions by the examiner and included arrests on assault and battery, bootlegging, operation of a house of ill fame, possession of gambling devices and violation of saloon-closing ordinances of Calumet City. The last arrest occurred in 1942 in Peru, Indiana, in connection with a charge of operating a house of ill fame. This charge was dismissed. These arrests occurred over a period beginning about 1922, and resulted in at least four instances of fines and imprisonment. On the hearing, the Government recommended the petition for naturalization be denied, on the ground that appellee had not established good moral character as required by section 707(a) of the Nationality Act, U.S.C.A. Title 8, § 707, for the reason appellee made a false affidavit regarding his arrests. The court heard testimony of two witnesses, who testified they had known appellee for some twenty years and that his moral character was good. On March 15, 1949, the court entered an order finding appellee had made the false affidavit of September 14, 1945, as a result of nervousness, excitement and without intent to withhold material information and admitted appellee to citizenship. On March 25, 1949, the Government moved for a new hearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence. On hearing on that motion it appeared that appellee had departed the United States into Mexico, returning on January 21, 1949, without having obtained a border-crossing permit or other authorization from the immigration authorities as required by section 451 of the Alien Registration Act. U.S.C.A. Title 8, § 451. This motion was heard on a stipulation of facts, and the court, on October 18, 1949, denied the motion and held the trip to Mexico did not affect the legality of appellee's residence in the United States for naturalization purposes. The appeal here is from both orders of the court.
The first question for determination is whether the court properly found appellee to be of good moral character so as to justify his admission to citizenship; the second, whether the court properly denied the motion for a new hearing.
The naturalization of appellee involves the granting to him the right to vote and therefore involves the elective franchise, which justifies direct appeal to this court.
It is the contention of the Government that the appellee has failed to establish good moral character as required by section 707(a) of the Nationality Act. That section, which is pertinent here, provides as follows: 'No person, * * * shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years * * *, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the petition up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, * * *.'
The Government in support of its position cites the rule that a petitioner for naturalization has the burden of establishing every condition upon which admission to citizenship is dependent. Calo v. United States, 400 Ill. 329, 79 N.E.2d 619; Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738. This presents the precise question whether the record in this case supports the finding below that appellee is 'a person of good moral character,' as required quired by the Nationality Act above quoted.
An examination of the record reveals the following facts in regard to the moral character of the appellee: With his petition he executed and filed an affidavit in which he stated he had been arrested only four times in his life. In this affidavit he listed these arrests as occurring in 1922 and in 1928 for liquor law violations, once in 1939 for reckless driving and once in 1941 for violation of the saloon-closing ordinance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF FERRO
...90 F.Supp. 191, 194.10 As to Application of Murra, see Ralich v. United States, supra, 185 F.2d at page 787, "In Sodo v. United States, 406 Ill. 484, 94 N.E.2d 325, 327, the Supreme Court of Illinois in referring to * * * Application of Murra * * * said: `There is nothing * * * in the Murra......
-
United States v. Kessler
...fraudulent concealment involved. To the same effect are Stevens v. United States, 7 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 880, and Sodo v. United States, 1950, 406 Ill. 484, 94 N.E.2d 325. As pointed out in all those decisions, Section 346(a)(1) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1163, 8 U.S.C. § 746(......
-
Taylor v. Krupp, 34703
...sufficient to give us jurisdiction on direct appeal (See Progressive Party v. Flynn, 400 Ill. 102, 79 N.E.2d 516; Sodo v. United States, 406 Ill. 484, 94 N.E.2d 325), we do not find that such a franchise is involved in the record now before us either procedurally, or as a matter of The reco......
-
United States v. Docherty
...W. Whitehurst, Judge." * Now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1440. 2 In re Talarico, D.C., 197 F. 1019; Petition of Ledo, D.C., 67 F.Supp. 917; Sodo v. United States, 406 Ill. 484, 94 N. E.2d 325; United States v. Etheridge, D. C., 41 F.2d 762; Ralich v. United States, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 784; United States v. H......