United States v. Jones, 18
| Decision Date | 29 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | Docket 20213.,No. 18,18 |
| Citation | 162 F.2d 72 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JONES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
George L. Grobe, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Henry W. Killeen, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Jay T. Barnsdall, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant-appellant.
Before LEARNED HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
We reject defendant's contention, made in a mood of technicalism appropriate only to an era now fortunately past, that the indictment (set forth in the footnote)1 did not sufficiently inform him of the nature of the crime charged. In the alternative, defendant complains that the indictment plainly shows that, if he committed a crime, he did so solely in Oregon, not in the Western District of New York. We assume, arguendo, the correctness of this characterization of the indictment. On that basis, a timely objection pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and to the Sixth Amendment, should have halted the trial. But a defendant, thus warned, by the face of the indictment, of the improper venue, waives the error when he goes to trial without interposing an objection,2 as defendant did here.
Defendant further asserts that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. We cannot agree. A government witness testified that the defendant told the witness that, having "received a notice to report for work of national importance to Civilian Public Service Camp 128 at Lapine, Oregon," and having received tickets and instructions from his Local Board to take a certain train from Elmira, New York, the defendant "had not taken that train," and "had no intention of reporting" to that camp.
We regard as without foundation defendant's contention that he was deprived of the opportunity to prove that his Local Board "exceeded its jurisdiction," and acted arbitrarily in classifying him as it did. True, the Chairman of the Board, called as a government witness, testified, on direct, that the Board had classified defendant as 4-E; that the defendant then asked for a 4-D classification (i. e., as a Minister of the Gospel); and that "the Board did not consider his request and continued his classification as 4-E." However, defendant's counsel, in cross-examining this witness, brought out the following:
In the circumstances, we think it was not error for the trial judge to ask the jurors, before any evidence was received, whether any of them were Jehovah's witnesses.
Affirme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Miller
...(7th Cir.1971) (same), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lawson, 653 F.2d 299, 301-02 (7th Cir.1981); United States v. Jones, 162 F.2d 72, 73 (2d Cir.1947) (same); Jenkins v. United States, 392 F.2d 303, 306 (10th Cir.1968) (defendant may raise venue issue in a motion for acqui......
-
United States v. Bowe
...of insufficiency was "made in a mood of technicalism appropriate only to an era now fortunately past * * *," United States v. Jones, 162 F.2d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 1947) (Frank, J.), and must be rejected. See Huff v. United States, 273 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1959); Babb v. United States, 218 F.2d 538 ......
-
People v. Simon
...particularly when the defect with regard to venue is apparent on the face of the accusatory pleading. (See, e.g., United States v. Jones (2d Cir.1947) 162 F.2d 72, 73; United States v. Price (2d Cir.1971) 447 F.2d 23, 27.) A significant number of our sister states also follow the rule that ......
-
Poliafico v. United States
...of the government's proofs. Objection to venue is waived by going to trial on the merits without raising the question. United States v. Jones, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 72; Hagner v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 335, 54 F.2d 446. Moreover, the evidence is to the effect that when Pieri handed these nar......