United States v. Macke
| Decision Date | 28 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 166,Docket 20472.,166 |
| Citation | 159 F.2d 673 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MACKE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Arthur A. Atha, of New York City, for appellants.
J. Vincent Keogh, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Robert M. Hitchcock, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 28, 1947. See 67 S.Ct. 1201.
In United States v. Ausmeier and 17 other defendants including the above three (152 F.2d 349, 355), this court ordered a retrial. In an opinion by Judge Frank the court said:
"There was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding that each of the defendants made false statements in his application in answer to items Nos. 10 and 15."
The indictment charged the defendants with conspiring with each other, with Draeger, the German Consul at New York, and his secretary Vogel, to misrepresent facts concerning the defendants' membership in and affiliation with the Nazi Party within the United States. The alleged falsifications were made in connection with the registration of the defendants required by the Alien Registration Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 452 et seq. An examination of the record of the present trial indicates that there was abundant proof that the defendants made false statements in answer to items 10 and 15 of their questionnaires, just as was shown at the former trial. The judgment there was reversed, not for lack of proof of guilt, but only because of an error in the charge. We shall not discuss the contention of the defendants that the verdict rendered at the present trial was not supported by substantial evidence. We ruled to the contrary as to the verdict on the former trial and the present record leaves the defendants in no better position. Each of them testified at the present trial, and the jury could readily infer as it did, that the answers they gave to items 10 and 15 of their questionnaires were knowingly false and misleading.
In addition to the foregoing criticism of the sufficiency of the evidence against the defendants, the latter claim that there was error by the trial judge in declining some ten requests to charge. We think these requests were properly declined for their substance had been covered by the charge that was delivered.
After the jury had been examined on the voir dire, the peremptory challenges had been exhausted, and the selected jurors had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sitarski v. State of New York
...583, 586-587, 40 S.Ct. 28, 63 L.Ed. 1154 (1919); United States v. Stidham, 459 F.2d 297, 298-299 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Macke, 159 F.2d 673, 675 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 810, 67 S.Ct. 1201, 91 L.Ed. 1830 (1947). In Stilson, the Supreme Court stated as There is nothing i......
-
Hanson v. United States
...any juror. This objection is unsupported by the authorities, and cannot be sustained upon any sound principle." See also United States v. Macke, 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 673; United States v. Keegan, 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 248; Kloss v. United States, 8 Cir., 77 F.2d 462, 463; Philbrook v. United States,......
-
United States v. El Rancho Adolphus Products
...924. It has repeatedly been held that the peremptory challenges are governed by statute and not by the Constitution. United States v. Macke, 2 Cir., 1947, 159 F. 2d 673. The defendants also contend that the Court erred in permitting counsel from the Food and Drug Administration to take part......
-
United States v. Whitehead, 00-2151
...they would have been if all defendants had remained, United States v. Phillips, 874 F.2d 123, 131 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Macke, 159 F.2d 673, 674 (2d Cir. 1947). Whitehead has not alleged that the decision to try both defendants jointly was erroneous, or that Molden's plea was del......