United States v. Hunt, 7542

• Citation: 120 F.2d 592
• Decision Date: 23 June 1941
• Docket Number: 7543.,No. 7542,7542
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. HUNT. UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

120 F.2d 592 (1941)

UNITED STATES v. HUNT.

UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON.

Nos. 7542, 7543.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 21, 1941.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1941.

Luis Kutner, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant Hunt and Henry L. Balaban, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant Henderson.

J. Albert Woll, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Judgment of five years' imprisonment was imposed upon each defendant, upon verdicts of guilt, under indictment for violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 397 et seq. The grounds of appeal are: (a) insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, (b) defects in the indictment, (c) variance between the indictment and the proof, (d) trial errors in examination of witnesses, (e) prejudicial remarks by prosecuting attorney, (f) erroneous instructions, prejudicial trial rulings, form of verdict, and refusal of severance.

The indictment was in six counts — three counts charged transportation of two girls from Benton Harbor, Michigan, to Chicago, Illinois, for purposes of prostitution, etc., and three counts charged similar transportation of one of the girls from Chicago, Illinois to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Conviction was on all counts.

The evidence amply supported the verdict, and disclosed the trip from Benton Harbor, to Chicago, where the defendants purchased clothing for the girls, and then drove them to Aurora, where one was placed in a house of ill fame. The other girl was driven to Milwaukee, where she stayed, and was later transferred to Sheboygan, and still later, to Aurora. Upon defendants' request the girls paid their earnings to them. Owners of the houses testified defendants conferred with them regarding the placement of the girls. The veracity of such witnesses may be open to question, but it was the jury's task to determine the reliability of their testimony. Appellant Henderson testified in his own defense and told a story of some plausibility, but it is not for us to weigh such conflicting evidence.

The alleged trial errors will be separately, but briefly considered.

(1) Refusal of Severance. We see no error in the trial court's refusal of severance. The two defendants acted jointly in most of the transactions which went to make up the crime charged. Most of the acts were done in each other's presence. Justice could be better served by a joint trial. The District Court correctly exercised its discretion. Lucas v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 92, 104 F.2d 225.

(2) Denial of Defendants' Motion to Compel Election. The six counts here charged were properly joined together, since all arose out of the same general transaction. Their allegations charged different phases of the same criminal plan, involving the same girls and the same general period of time. This case falls within the statute for joinder which provides:

"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...