United States v. Brooks, 14798.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14798.,14798. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh Erbie BROOKS, Wallace Bridgeforth, James S. Simmons, James Kimble, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert E. Lillard, Nashville, Tenn., A. A. Birch, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for defendants-appellants.
Carrol D. Kilgore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., Kenneth Harwell, U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, CECIL, Circuit Judge, and BOYD, District Judge.
The appellants herein were convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, on a two-count information.
The first count charged that during the period beginning July 1, 1960, up to and including September 28, 1960, the appellants, being persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers, willfully failed and refused to register with the Director of Internal Revenue, for the Internal Revenue Collection District of Tennessee, at Nashville, in violation of Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203. The second count charged that they failed and refused to pay an occupational tax, in violation of Section 7262, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7262.
Upon execution of a search warrant, the appellants were found in possession of various numbers tickets and other items used in carrying on a numbers lottery.
One of the claims made by counsel for the appellants is that the search warrant was invalid. In this respect the first contention is that the warrant was issued upon unsworn attachments containing material facts relied upon as a part of the affidavit. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was made upon a form "Affidavit for Search Warrant." The affidavit appears to be signed by John B. Anderson, Jr., Special Agent, Intelligence Division, Internal Revenue Service, and sworn to by him before J. Washington Moore, United States Commissioner.
In the space for a description of the premises to be searched, the description is started and there being insufficient space to complete it, there is a note: "(continued on attachment No. 1)." The description is continued on a plain sheet of paper headed "Attachment No. 1" which is fastened to the affidavit form by staples.
Similarly, in the space for stating the facts to establish the grounds for issuing the warrant, there is a note: "(continued on attachment No. 2)." Under this heading there are three sheets of plain paper containing a statement of facts. These sheets are also attached to the affidavit form by staples. Each of these sheets purports to be signed by John B. Anderson, Jr., and dated "9-26-60," the date of the affidavit. Mr. Anderson testified that the attachments and everything else were attached to the form copy of the search warrant, at the time he swore to it.
The affidavit form and the attachments appear to be one complete document, regular on its face and we presume Mr. Anderson, the special agent, and Mr. Moore, the commissioner, properly performed their duties. If the attachments were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Smith
...is also within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a sequestration order has been violated. United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 853 (6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122 (1962). It is clear from the record that the trial court viewe......
-
Jefferson v. Terry
...700 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir.1983) (citing United States v. Berry, 670 F.2d 583, 606 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) and United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 853 (6th Cir. 1962)). Georgia state law similarly gives trial courts broad discretion in enforcing the rule of sequestration. Watts v. State......
-
State v. Rose
...404 U.S. 993, 92 S.Ct. 541, 30 L.Ed.2d 545; Huffman v. United States, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 470 F.2d 386, 393 n.7; United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851, 852 (6th Cir.). Similarly, courts have allowed a judge or magistrate who issues a search warrant to read an affidant's preliminary statem......
-
Cummings v. Rapelje
...a criminal defendant of his constitutional rights. Robinson v. Tennessee, 474 F.2d 1273, 1273 (6th Cir. 1973) (citing United States v. Brooks, 303 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1962)). Because Pries and Lawson violated the court's sequestration order by peeking through the courtroom door during the vi......