Thomas v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 7292.,7292. |
| Citation | 15 F.2d 958 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Will Steel and Pratt P. Bacon, both of Texarkana, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
S. S. Langley, U. S. Atty., of Ft. Smith, Ark., and James D. Shaver, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Texarkana, Ark.
Before STONE and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error complains of his trial and conviction on an indictment which charged him with violation of section 135 of the Criminal Code (section 10305, U. S. Comp. Stat.). Among the acts denounced as criminal offenses by that section are these: (1) Corruptly endeavoring to influence any petit juror or officer in or of any court of the United States, in the discharge of his duty; (2) corruptly endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice in said courts. The indictment charged that the trial of a criminal case entitled "United States v. Morton Howard Marr and others," in the Texarkana Division of the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, was begun on April 8, 1924, and continued for two weeks, that a petit jury was impaneled in said case on said date and the court ordered that the jury be kept together in charge of the marshal of the district, that Herbert Adams was appointed, qualified and sworn as bailiff and placed in charge of said jury and continued as such bailiff in charge of said jury throughout the trial of said case, that on or about April 10, 1924, while said Adams was in charge of the jury and defendant well knew that fact, the defendant, during the progress of the trial, approached Adams while he was acting as bailiff in charge of said jury, and corruptly endeavored to influence said Adams in the discharge of his duties as bailiff, he engaged the said Adams in conversation and asked him how he would like to make $5,000, that he (defendant) thought he knew a man who would pay $5,000 to any one who would hang the jury in the case then on trial and that he would see the bailiff again about it, and that by means of said statements and request the defendant endeavored to convey to Adams and to the petit jurors an offer to pay money to Adams and the jurors in return for hanging said jury, thereby causing a mistrial of the case.
There was a demurrer to the indictment, which the court overruled, and that ruling is assigned as error. We think the charge fully embodied an offense defined by the section and it advised the defendant sufficiently of the facts to enable him to prepare his defense.
Adams, the bailiff, testified that defendant came to him while he had charge of the jury and said to him: How would you like to make $5,000? I think I know a man who would pay it to hang the jury in the Marr case — and that he (defendant) would see Adams later. The defendant set up an alibi. He testified that he was not in Texarkana from April 7th to the 16th, inclusive, that he came to Texarkana on April 17th, left there the next day and was absent several days thereafter. He brought witnesses from outlying towns in Arkansas and neighboring states to corroborate his testimony in being at different places during the time that he claimed he was not in Texarkana. He denied that he was in court during the trial of the case against Marr and others. Witnesses for the prosecution testified to the contrary, stating that they had seen him in court on different occasions during the trial and on the streets in Texarkana. Herbert Adams testified that he had known the defendant about 3 ½ years, that the Marr trial had been on for two or three days when defendant came to him in the lobby of the post office in Texarkana when he was asking for mail for the jurors and some others. It was about 8:30 in the morning. The jury had just had breakfast and they were upstairs. He had brought them over to court after breakfast. He had left the other bailiff in charge while he went for the mail, that defendant came in, came up to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Siegel
...and corruptly endeavoring to do so. Success is not the criterion of the statute though it may aggravate the offense. Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 958; Bedell v. United States, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 358, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 628, 56 S.Ct. 151, 80 L.Ed. 447. The statute condemns "......
-
Gault v. State, 217
...confession. It is universally held that, in the absence of statute, an oral confession is competent and admissible. See Thomas v. United States, 15 F.2d 958 (C.C.A.8th); 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed.) §§ 339, 340. An oral confession that has been taken down but not signed may be ad......
-
United States v. Knife
...1924), involving the inducement of a person to fail to appear in court and answer to a charge pending against her; Thomas v. United States, 15 F.2d 958 (8th Cir. 1926), involving an endeavor to influence the jury by attempting to bribe the bailiff and jurors to hang the jury; Harper v. Unit......
-
United States v. Polakoff, 329.
...his attitude towards the accused, constituted the offense. That success in the endeavor is not necessary is also held in Thomas v. United States, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 958, while Bedell v. United States, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 358, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 628, 56 S.Ct. 151, 152, 80 L.Ed. 447, states ......