United States v. Rosenthal
| Decision Date | 02 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | 1,838. |
| Citation | 174 F. 652 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ROSENTHAL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
The following is the opinion of Maxey, District Judge, on sustaining a plea in bar:
This is a libel of information filed by the government to forfeit eight diamond solitaire rings, and other items of jewelry mentioned in the information, because of their unlawful introduction into the United States, and Max Rosenthal and Abraham Rosenthal appear as claimants of the jewelry in the information described. The court finds that there was probable cause for the seizure of the diamonds and other jewelry mentioned in the information, and directs that a proper certificate thereof be entered of record. The plea avers, and it is admitted by counsel for the government, that Max Rosenthal and Abraham Rosenthal were indicted, tried, and acquitted of the offense of smuggling into the United States the articles in the information described. The court desires further to say that it differs with the jury in the conclusion reached by them in acquitting the defendants, Max and Abraham Rosenthal; but the question submitted to the jury was one of fact, which it was their duty to resolve as they deemed proper under the evidence and instructions of the court, and, the jury having seen fit to acquit the defendants, there is no appeal from such a verdict. The claimants in this case having been acquitted of the offense of smuggling in the criminal prosecution, the law declares that such verdict and judgment of acquittal may be interposed in bar of a libel of information based upon practically the same offense.
Counts 1 and 3 of the information charge that the articles of jewelry mentioned therein were smuggled by Max and Abraham Rosenthal into the United States. The judgment of acquittal in the criminal case may clearly be interposed as a bar to these two counts. There may be some doubt as to whether such judgment of acquittal may be interposed as a bar to the remaining counts of the information; but the court is of the opinion that such judgment of acquittal is a bar to all the counts in the information contained, for the reason that all the counts of the information charge substantially the smuggling of the articles, that is to say, the clandestine introduction of the same into the United States without paying or accounting for the duties with intent to defraud the revenue, and the same proof substantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Gramer
...U.S. 475, 16 S.Ct. 641, 40 L.Ed. 777; United States v. A Lot of Precious Stones and Jewelry, 6 Cir., 1905, 134 F. 61; United States v. Rosenthal, 5 Cir., 1909, 174 F. 652; Sierra v. United States, 1 Cir., 1916, 233 F. 37; United States v. 2180 Cases of Champagne, 2 Cir., 1926, 9 F.2d 710; S......
-
United States v. ONE (1) 1969 BUICK RIVIERA AUTOMOBILE, 73-2877.
...the forfeiture on collateral estoppel, Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); United States v. Rosenthal, 174 F. 652 (5th Cir. 1909), or double jeopardy grounds. We disagree and uphold the forfeiture on the basis of the Supreme Court's affirmance of our dec......
-
United States v. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring
...the earlier Supreme Court decision of Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886), and United States v. Rosenthal, (5th Cir., 1909) 174 F. 652. The trial court also concluded that forfeiture proceedings per se have now been finally declared punitive by the Suprem......
-
United States v. Manufacturing Apparatus, Oleomargarine, and Raw Materials of Western Oleomargarine Co.
... ... 846, should be applied in principle beyond the particular ... facts there involved which are quite unlike those in hand. In ... the Coffey Case he was the defendant in the criminal ... prosecution and also claimant. Likewise, in U.S. v ... Rosenthal, 174 F. 652, 98 C.C.A. 406; U.S. v ... Seattle B. & M. Co. (D.C.) 135 F. 597 ... The ... Western Oleomargarine Company, claimant, was not put in ... jeopardy by the prosecution of Flood. The issue involved in ... that prosecution was not one under which the claimant could ... have ... ...