Sullivan v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6775,6776.,6775 |
| Citation | 7 F.2d 355 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. UNITED STATES. MANN v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Elbridge G. Wilson, of Tulsa, Okl. (James H. Sykes, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
W. F. Rampendahl, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl. (Frank Lee, U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and POLLOCK and SYMES, District Judges.
The above-named plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted with two other persons, B. Ed King and Walter Chitwood, on two counts in the indictment; the first charging against all defendants a conspiracy to violate section 194 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10364), and in the second count each and all said defendants were charged with the substantive offense of violating the provisions of said section 194 in the procuring, handling, selling, and attempting to sell $14,000 of bonds of the Argentine nation. All defendants were on their trial convicted, but Sullivan and Mann alone appeal. Sullivan was convicted on both counts, and Mann only on the second count. Sullivan was sentenced to serve a term of 2 years on each count of the indictment, to run concurrently, and pay a fine aggregating $750; Mann to serve a term of 1½ years in the federal prison and pay a fine of $250. Separate writs of error were taken from said judgments of conviction, but the cases were both heard on a single record, and will be considered as one case on appeal.
The record contains 14 assignments of error, but by reason of the condition of the record few of these may be considered as raising any question for review in this court. As shown by the record, defendants Sullivan, King, and Chitwood filed motions to quash the indictments, and also a motion for a bill of particulars. These motions were by the court denied. But, as no exceptions to such order were saved, the assignments of error 1 and 2 count for nothing. The indictment was good.
The third assignment of error is said to be based on an order denying an application for severance as to Sullivan and Mann. A search of the record fails to disclose any such application was filed or any order overruling the same made. If such application had been presented, there would have been no error in overruling the same in this case.
Assignments of error 4 to 6, inclusive, relate to evidence of conversations of witnesses with one or more of defendants out of the presence and hearing of other defendants. However, the first count of the indictment, as has been stated, charges a conspiracy as against all defendants. After the unlawful confederacy in such a case is proven the acts and sayings of one co-conspirator are evidence against all. Not only so, but all defendants were being jointly tried under the second count, and admissible evidence as against any one of defendants offered on the joint trial must be received as against such defendant, and go into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons Hardware Co. v. Rhodes
... ... to prove the contemporaneous parol agreement of release was this: The written assignment states the consideration to have been "one dollar and other valuable considerations," and that in such ... ...
-
United States v. Alfano
...F.2d 15, certiorari denied 297 U.S. 711, 56 S.Ct. 574, 80 L.Ed. 998; Keith v. United States, 6 Cir., 1926, 11 F.2d 933; Sullivan v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 355, certiorari denied 270 U.S. 648, 46 S.Ct. 348, 70 L.Ed. 779; Pappas v. United States, 9 Cir., 1923, 292 F. In the Galatas cas......
-
United States v. Alfano, E-4511
...Appeals in Gambino v. United States, 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 140, in which the statement was offered to prove a conspiracy. In Sullivan v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 355, it was held that evidence admissible against one of the defendants jointly tried is admissible, and must go into the record,......