U.S. v. Moy Toom
| Citation | 224 F. 520 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MOY TOOM. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1915 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
H. S. Marshall, U.S. Dist. Atty., of New York City, for the United States.
Robert M. Moore, of New York City, for defendant.
As to the technical point raised that on his first examination defendant was instructed to answer questions as truthfully as he could, although he had stated that he did not want to answer any question till he saw a lawyer, I fully concur with Judge Hough's ruling in United States v. Lem You, 224 F. 519. It would seem to make little difference whether this preliminary inquisition is had before inspector or commissioner, so long as thereafter the Chinese person is given opportunity to appear with counsel, to be examined (this defendant did not take the stand on the formal examination), to call witnesses, and to have counsel, if he chooses, to cross-examine witnesses called by the government. All these privileges he had. An offer to hear further testimony in this court was declined. Examination of very many records in these cases has induced the conviction that it tends greatly to elucidate the truth to hear what the Chinese person has to say about such simple facts as his age, parentage, relationships, occupation, and localities where he has lived, and the circumstances attending his latest entry into this country, before his lawyer appears.
The discrepancies between defendant's story and that of his witness are so great that my conclusion is the same as the commissioner's.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
...225 U.S. 460, 32 Sup.Ct. 734, 56 L.Ed. 1165, is conclusive. To the same effect are In re Madeiros (D.C.) 225 F. 90; United States v. Moy Toom (D.C.) 224 F. 520; United States v. Lem You (D.C.) 224 F. United States ex rel. Buccino v. Williams (C.C.) 190 F. 897; United States ex rel. Ivanow v......
-
United States v. Lee Hee
...is likely to be the truth is well recognized. United States v. Lem You, 224 F. 519 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); United States v. Moy Toom, 224 F. 520 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); United States v. Hom Lim, 223 F. 520 (C. C. A. 2). Lee Hee had an opportunity to cross-examine the officers who interrogated him......
-
United States v. Hen Lee
...... rejecting his testimony as unworthy of belief, although Judge. Lacombe did say in United States v. Moy Toom (D.C.). 224 F. 520 (decided in June, 1915):. . . . 'Examination. of very many records in these cases had induced the. conviction that ......
-
Ung Bak Foon v. Prentis
...... necessary to the efficient administration of the statute,. and, as said in United States v. Moy Toom (D.C.) 224. F. 520:. . . . 'It. tends greatly to elucidate the truth to hear what the. Chinese person has to say about such simple ......