United States v. Moore
Decision Date | 03 August 1925 |
Citation | 7 F.2d 734 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. MOORE et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
W. O. Potter, U. S. Atty., of Marion, Ill., L. T. Allen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Danville, Ill., and Roger Shale and Russell Hardy, Sp. Assts. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Wm. Acton and Walter T. Gunn, both of Danville, Ill., James Dyer, of Hoopeston, Ill., and Herbert Pope, Allen J. Carter, and Melvin M. Hawley, all of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
This is a removal proceeding. The defendants Willard and Moore reside within the Eastern District of Illinois, and the government seeks to remove them to the Northern District of Ohio, to stand trial upon an indictment returned in that district on March 27, 1924, charging them, together with 45 other persons and 47 corporations, with having engaged in a combination in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in malleable iron castings, in violation of section 1 of Act July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 209), known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Comp. St. § 8820).
The procedure to remove persons charged with violating the laws of the United States from districts in which they reside, or may be apprehended, to districts where indictments may be pending against them, is established by section 1014, R. S. U. S. (Comp. St. § 1674), which reads as follows:
This tribunal can decide only whether these defendants shall attend the court which is ultimately to pass upon the question of their guilt or innocence. It is sitting merely as a committing magistrate. There is not and cannot well be any uniform rule determining how far an examining magistrate should hear the witnesses produced by an accused person, but the proceeding is not a trial. The issue is confined to the single question of whether the evidence makes a prima facie case for the prosecution sufficient to make it necessary to hold the party for trial (Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 461, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274, 46 L. R. A. N. S. 397), and not to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction (Collins v. Loisel, 259 U. S. 309, 315, 316, 317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. 956).
Furthermore, the sufficiency of the indictment is to be determined by the court in which it was found, and is not a matter of inquiry in removal proceedings. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 87, 24 S. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882. In other words, the committing magistrate cannot conclusively adjudge the indictment to be either good or bad, or pass finally upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. His decision discharging the prisoner neither annuls the indictment nor blots out the offense. The trial court alone has plenary jurisdiction over the cause, and consequently it alone has plenary power to pass upon the sufficiency of the indictment as the pleading which initiated and is the foundation of the prosecution. Morse v. United States, 45 S. Ct. 209, 69 L. Ed. 522, Feb. 2, 1925. Morse v. U. S., supra. All controverted questions of law and fact are for the trial court. Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219, 35 S. Ct. 54, 59 L. Ed. 203; Louie v. U. S., 254 U. S. 548, 41 S. Ct. 188, 65 L. Ed. 399; Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U. S. 399, 44 S. Ct. 360, 68 L. Ed. 759. Competent evidence to justify removal is not necessarily evidence competent to convict. Fernandez v. Phillips, 45 S. Ct. 541, 69 L. Ed. ___ (May 25, 1925). This court is not called upon to determine whether the offense charged has in fact been committed. Dumbra v. U. S., 45 S. Ct. 546, 69 L. Ed. ___ (May 25, 1925).
The grand jury of the Northern District of Ohio, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, found that there was probable cause and returned an indictment. Final trial can be had only in the same forum. But it has been repeatedly held that in such cases the committing magistrate exercises something more than a mere ministerial function, involving no judicial discretion. He must look into the indictment to ascertain whether an offense against the United States is charged, find whether there was probable cause, and determine whether the court to which the accused is sought to be removed has jurisdiction of the same. Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20, 29, 27 S. Ct. 430, 51 L. Ed. 689.
Concerning this indictment, the court of original jurisdiction upon demurrer said: It follows that this court has nothing to say concerning the validity of the indictment. If the trial court was wrong in its determination, the courts of review will so declare, but it is beyond what this court believes to be a proper conception of its power to review that decision or declare it erroneous.
But the indictment is to be considered as competent evidence. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 S. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882, and other cases supra. The government submitted it upon such theory and rested. Certain evidence was then submitted by the defendants, and, in connection with its cross-examination of defendants' witnesses, the government submitted additional evidence. The defendants submitted evidence tending to prove that competition between...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. B. Goedde & Co.
...States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C., 149 F. 823, writ of error dismissed, 212 U. S. 585, 29 S.Ct. 681, 53 L.Ed. 661; United States v. Moore, D.C.E.D.Ill. 7 F.2d 734. The language of United States v. Moore et al., D. C., 7 F.2d 734, 736, where I had occasion to consider the sufficiency o......