United States v. Kramer, 11631
| Decision Date | 26 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | 11632.,No. 11631,11631 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris KRAMER, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael RISK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
B. Howard Caughran, Frank A. Symmes, Indianapolis, Ind., Wilbur F. Dassel, Evansville, Ind., for appellants.
Jack C. Brown, U. S. Atty., Don A. Tabbert, Asst. U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for the United States.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and MAJOR and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.
In a one-count indictment each defendant was charged with unlawfully and knowingly inducing Jessie Lois Ward to travel, on April 6, 1954, in interstate commerce, from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Louisville, Kentucky, for the purpose of prostitution in violation of Title 18 U.S. C.A. § 2422. Defendant Kramer moved for severance, which motion was denied. The trial was to a jury. Each defendant moved for a directed verdict, and these motions were likewise denied. The jury found each defendant guilty and the trial court imposed a prison sentence in addition to a fine.
No. 11632 — Michael Risk.
The principal point urged by defendant Risk is that he was entrapped by FBI officers. It appeared from the testimony that the victim herein turned informant, and that on several occasions long after she had made the trip from Indianapolis to Louisville, an FBI agent paid or advanced to her certain sums of money.
The defense of entrapment cannot be sustained. There is no evidence to show the criminal design of inducing Miss Ward to travel from Indianapolis to Louisville originated in the minds of the FBI agents, or that either defendant was induced or lured by the FBI agents into the commission of a criminal act. United States v. Spadafora, 7 Cir., 181 F.2d 957, 958, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 897, 71 S.Ct. 234, 95 L.Ed. 650; United States v. Perkins, 7 Cir., 190 F.2d 49, and United States v. Lemons, 7 Cir., 200 F. 2d 396, 397.
Defendant Risk also complains of two instructions given to the jury. We find no error therein.
No. 11631 — Morris Kramer.
The principal points urged by defendant Kramer are that the Court erred by denying his motion for severance, and that there is no evidence in the record that defendant Kramer, in any way, induced Miss Ward to travel from Indianapolis to Louisville. This defendant also raises questions as to excessive bail and the severity of the sentence. We shall not discuss these latter two contentions as they are entirely without merit.
A motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 95, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; United States v. Hibbs, 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 269. The only reason given in the motion for severance was that different evidence would be required to sustain a conviction as to defendant Kramer than would be required to sustain a conviction against defendant Risk, and that defendant Kramer could not obtain a fair trial if required to go to trial with his co-defendant. Defendant Kramer's counsel argued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madden v. Israel
...Circuit. Levine v. United States, 430 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1970); Glass v. United States, 328 F.2d 754 (7th Cir. 1964); United States v. Kramer, 236 F.2d 656 (7th Cir. 1956); United States v. Carengella, 198 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 881, 73 S.Ct. 179, 97 L.Ed. 682. The st......
-
State v. Manney
...Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 344 (5 Cir., 1957), certiorari denied 355 U.S. 863, 78 S.Ct. 95, 2 L.Ed.2d 68 (1957); United States v. Kramer, 236 F.2d 656 (7 Cir., 1956); Daley v. United States, supra (231 F.2d 123); Malatkofski v. United States, 179 F.2d 905 (1 Cir., 1950); Davis v. Unit......
-
United States v. Echeles
...States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 287 F.2d 667 (7th Cir. 1961), aff'd 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed. 2d 357 (1963); United States v. Kramer, 236 F.2d 656 (7th Cir. 1956). It is also quite clear that this discretion is subject to review and correction only if abused. Olmstead v. United State......
-
Whitley v. State
...intent of the principal actor, he is an aider and abettor. Hernandez v. United States, 300 F.2d 114 (9th Cir.1962); United States v. Kramer, 236 F.2d 656 (7th Cir.1956); Johnson v. United States, 195 F.2d 673 (8th Cir.1952). Hence, if the defendant was at the scene and did not disapprove or......