United States v. Amo
| Decision Date | 18 September 1919 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. AMO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Albert C. Wolfe, U.S. Dist. Atty., of La Crosse, Wis.
Frank B. Lamoreux, of Ashland, Wis., for defendant.
Several cases have been tried at this term which involve the question of the right of government agents to make use of Indians to obtain intoxicating liquor at saloons and show substantially the same facts. There have been several convictions in cases involving the question of the use of these decoys, in which proper motions have been made so as to save the question.
It appears that two full-blood Indians, strong, stalwart specimens of the race, living on the Lac du Flambeau reservation, were hired by the agent to go to Saxon, some distance from Flambeau, and visit a certain saloon for the purpose of buying liquor. The two Indians, and the agent went together to Saxon, and the Indians went to the saloon and bought, and in the space of two hours consumed, each 12 drinks, and purchased a half pint bottle of whisky. The agent did not go with them into the saloon, or visit it at any time. There was no persuasion or deception whatever. The Indians simply went up to the bar and said 'Whisky?' which was continuously furnished them until each had had 12 whisky glasses filled to the top (in Indian fashion). All the whisky was paid for with money furnished by the agent of the government, who also paid all the railroad fare to and from Saxon, and wages to each of the Indians at $3 a day.
On these facts defendant's attorney moves to direct a verdict for defendant at the close of all the evidence, which was overruled, with the direction that, in case of a verdict of guilty, the objection might be raised in any proper way. A motion is now made in arrest of judgment. It is urged on the part of the defendant that, while decoys are permissible to entrap criminals, they are not to create them-- to present opportunity to those having intent or willing to commit a statutory crime, but not to ensnare the law-abiding into unconscious offending, substantially quoting from United States v. Healy (D.C.) 202 F. 349. In the Healy Case defendant was charged with selling liquor to an Indian, but supposed him to be a white man, so that the case may be said to have included the element of deceit. The court says:
'The case at bar is not of those where the actor knows his act violates the law.'
Most of the decisions where defendant has been discharged are those in which he was enticed or expressly persuaded to make the unlawful sale or do the unlawful act, and not where the government merely furnished the opportunity to a person willing to offend. Such is the case of Voves v. United States, 249 F. 191, 161 C.C.A. 227, in this circuit, where the defendant supposed the Indian was a Mexican, and this was known to the government detectives, by whom the Indian was induced to buy the liquor, but who did nothing to correct the impression of defendant in respect to the buyer's race. The element of deceit was also present in Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F. 412, 137 C.C.A. 604, Sam Yick v. United States, 240 F. 60, 153 C.C.A. 96, and Peterson v. United States, 255 F. 433, 166 C.C.A. 509. The question is settled for this circuit by Goldstein v. United States, 256 F. 813, . . . C.C.A. . . . .
In the present case Indians visit a saloon and buy liquor from a person who is entirely ready and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrells v. United States
...was not sustained, however, in a case where Indians were sent by officers to purchase the liquor, but were not disguised. United States v. Amo (D. C.) 261 F. 106. And the defense will be sustained in a prosecution for crimes such as larceny, where the want of consent of the person affected ......
-
O'BRIEN v. United States
...S., 261 F. 515 (C. C. A. Or.); Fetters v. U. S., 260 F. 142 (C. C. A. Cal.); Goldstein v. U. S., 256 F. 813 (C. C. A. Ill.); U. S. v. Amo, 261 F. 106 (D. C. Wis.); Jung Quey v. U. S., 222 F. 766 (C. C. A. Cal.). B. State Court Decisions: People v. Ficke, 343 Ill. 367, 175 N. E. 543; State v......