United States v. King, 266

• Decision Date: 24 June 1947
• Docket Number: No. 266,Docket 20587.,266
• Citation: 162 F.2d 594
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. KING.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

162 F.2d 594 (1947)

UNITED STATES v. KING.

No. 266, Docket 20587.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 24, 1947.

Louis J. Castellano, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Nathan Sweedler, of New York City, and Denis M. Hurley, of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.

Mario Pittoni, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (J. Vincent Keogh, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

Defendant, having been convicted of bribing an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 91, appeals on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial judge coerced the jury to produce the result. So far as is material here, the offense denounced by the statute is the giving of money to any officer of the United States with intent to influence his decision on any matter which may be pending before him in his official capacity. Defendant as a civilian assistant night superintendent of carpenters at the Brooklyn Army Base. Lieutenant Fletcher, the army officer in charge of the base carpenter shop, was defendant's immediate superior, and had authority, among other things, to prevent the discharge of carpenters or to reinstate them once they had been discharged. According to the evidence for the prosecution, defendant approached Fletcher four times in late 1944 in a successful attempt to secure the reinstatement of five carpenters.

On November 23, 1944, defendant requested a private interview with Fletcher; and when they had gone from Fletcher's office to a nearby dispensary, he asked if it was possible to secure the reinstatement of the five men who had been laid off. Fletcher answered that "it was probably a difficult thing to do." On November 25, in answer to defendant's inquiry, Fletcher told him that he could have the men reinstated. Thereupon defendant requested that the pay checks of two of the men who, he said, owed him money be given to him. On November 30, Fletcher gave defendant the checks and defendant told Fletcher he would see him the following day. On December 1, defendant requested a private interview with Fletcher and, when they had retired to the dispensary, gave him $70, saying he would get the rest of it later because the men did not receive a very big pay check. Explaining the purpose of the payment, defendant said, "It is for the list of the boys that you helped me out with." The carpenters were reinstated about November 30, but the exact time was not stated. Later Fletcher, who had been cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, turned the money over to them.

Defendant admitted seeking the reinstatement of the men and the payment of the $70, but, with corroboration from his wife, maintained that he gave Fletcher the money as a loan on December 16. He argues that in any event the transfer of the money was long after...