United States v. Glass, 20438
| Decision Date | 09 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 20439,No. 20438,20457.,20438 |
| Citation | 30 F. Supp. 397 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GLASS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Eli H. Brown, Dist. Atty., and J. Dudley Inman, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.
R. C. Boyce, of Nashville, Tenn., and Ollie James Cohen, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant.
This action is before the Court on the motion of the defendant Harold Glass for a new trial in each of the three above styled causes on the ground that the Court erred in ordering certain of the causes heard together before a single jury at the same time, over the defendant's objections.
In indictment No. 20438 the defendants Harold Glass and Robert Simms were jointly charged with unlawful traffic in heroin on May 21st, 1939, the first count charging the unlawful sale of the heroin, the second count charging the unlawful purchase of the heroin, and the third count charging the unlawful concealment of the heroin after importation.
In indictment No. 20439 the defendant Harold Glass was charged with unlawful traffic in heroin on the 6th of May 1939, the indictment containing three counts similar to those in indictment No. 20438.
In indictment No. 20457 the defendants Harold Glass and Maggie Hall were jointly indicted for unlawful traffic in heroin on the 3rd of August 1939, the first count charging the unlawful purchase of the heroin and the second count charging the unlawful concealment of the heroin after importation.
In indictment No. 20440 the defendant Maggie Hall was charged with unlawful traffic in heroin on the 7th day of May, 1939, the 9th of May 1939, and the 14th of May 1939. The indictment contained nine counts charging the three offenses on each day of the sale of heroin, the purchase of heroin, and the concealment of heroin after importation.
The purchase and sale of heroin under the conditions alleged to exist are offenses under 26 U.S.C.A. § 1043(a). The concealment of heroin after importation under the conditions alleged in the indictments is an offense under 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. The government moved that all four indictments be heard jointly before a single jury at the same time. This motion was overruled, but the court ordered that indictments No. 20438 and 20439, the first involving Glass and Simms together, and the second involving Glass alone, be heard together, and that indictments No. 20457 and 20440, the first involving Glass and Hall jointly, and the second involving Hall alone, be heard together. The defendant Glass objected to these orders on the ground that he was entitled to a separate trial in each of the three indictments involving him.
In indictments No. 20438 and 20439 the jury rendered separate verdicts on all six counts finding both defendants guilty under the three counts in the indictment No. 20438, and the defendant Glass guilty on all three counts in indictment No. 20439. In the joint trial of the other two indictments the defendant Maggie Hall at the close of all of the evidence changed her plea from not guilty to a plea of guilty in both indictments, and indictment No. 20440 containing the nine counts against Maggie Hall alone was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. In indictment No. 20457, being against Glass and Hall jointly, the issue as to Maggie Hall was withdrawn from the jury and the jury was instructed to direct their attention only to the defendant Harold Glass. In this indictment the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant on both counts. The defendant Glass has moved for a new trial in each of the three indictments in which verdicts of guilty were returned against him on the ground of improper consolidation of indictments.
Most of the brief of counsel for Glass is devoted to a discussion of the principles applicable to an order consolidating indictments. Reference is made to 18 U.S.C.A. § 557 (R.S. § 1024) and authorities are cited construing that Section. It provides as follows:
"When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts; and if two or more indictments are found in such cases, the court may order them to be consolidated."
The authorities cited, and others hereinafter referred to, hold that an indictment can not join counts against different defendants, and that a consolidation of indictments is only proper where they could have been joined in separate counts. McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 17 S.Ct. 31, 41 L.Ed. 355; Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 18 S.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509; De Luca v. United States, 2 Cir., 299 F. 741; Turner v. United States, 5 Cir., 66 F. 280. But in the opinion of the court this question is not the one which is now before the court for consideration. The indictments were not consolidated. On the contrary, each indictment retained its separate identity and separate verdicts were rendered on each count of each indictment. The order entered was not a consolidation of the indictments but was to the effect that the two indictments in each instance would be tried together and at the same time. In Betts v. United States, 1 Cir., 132 F. 228, 234, the court held that such an order was not a consolidation of the indictments in the proper sense of the word. The question therefore is not if there was an improper consolidation of indictments, but rather whether or not the court erred in ordering two indictments involving different defendants to be heard together.
28 U.S.C.A. § 734 (R.S. § 921) provides as follows:
"When causes of a like nature or relative to the same question are pending before a court of the United States, or of any Territory, the court may make such orders and rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mellor
...seems to be directly instructive also in its factual setting. See also United States v. Mullen, D.C., 7 F.2d 244; and United States v. Glass, D. C.Ky., 30 F.Supp. 397. The propriety of indicting jointly, not for conspiracy but for a substantive crime, two or more persons who, together, comm......
- Street v. Welch