United States v. Thornton, Cr. No. 45771.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 45771. |
| Citation | 178 F. Supp. 42 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Melvin L. THORNTON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. D. of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for United States of America. Marie L. McCann, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.
Florence M. Kelley, New York City, for defendant. Maurice Brill, New York City, of counsel.
The defendant moves to dismiss both counts of the indictment upon the ground "that the allegations stated in the indictment, as supplemented by the Government's bill of particulars do not constitute a violation of either Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1071 () or Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4 ()."
As to the legal sufficiency of Count 1, the charge that defendant harbored and concealed one David Lynn Thurston from arrest.
In Count 1, as supplemented by the bill of particulars, in substance it is alleged, as follows:
1. That on or about January 6, 1959, the defendant had notice and knowledge that a federal warrant had been issued for the apprehension of David Lynn Thurston.
2. That defendant entered a hotel in Denver, Colorado, with the intention of registering for a room for himself and Thurston, and upon discovering that a notice that Thurston was wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the lobby of said hotel, did decide not to obtain a room in said hotel.
3. That defendant travelled from Denver, Colorado to Brooklyn, New York, with Thurston.
4. That defendant registered in a hotel and arranged the rental of a room shared by him and Thurston in Brooklyn.
In the case of United States v. Shapiro, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 891, the Court construed the words of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 as follows:
Conceal - to hide, secrete or keep out of sight.
Harbor - to lodge, to care for after secreting the offender.
It is plain that the result of the rental of the hotel room was the keeping of Thurston out of sight. If Thurston had taken the room for his own account and thus removed himself from the sight of and contact with other persons, there would then be no involvement of the defendant. However, when the defendant, Thornton, took active steps to rent the room and share it with Thurston, he thereby became a party to the secretion of Thurston.
As to the legal sufficiency of Count 2, the charge of misprision of a felony, i. e., knowledge of the commission of a felony by Thurston.
The gist of the charge is that between January 9, 1959 and February 6, 1959, in this district, the defendant having knowledge of Thurston's unlawful flight from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Silva
...v. Whitman, 480 F.2d 1028, 1030 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1026, 94 S.Ct. 453, 38 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973); United States v. Thornton, 178 F.Supp. 42, 43 (E.D.N.Y.1959). Silva was also in possession of guns and disguises which the jury might have inferred were for the fugitive's benefit. ......
-
United States v. Worcester
...S. v. Perlstein, 3 Cir., 126 F.2d 789, 798; Neal v. U. S., 8 Cir., 102 F.2d 643; Bratton v. U. S., 10 Cir., 73 F.2d 795; U. S. v. Thornton, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 178 F.Supp. 42; U. S. v. Farrar, D.C.Mass., 38 F.2d 515, Id., 281 U.S. 624, 50 S.Ct. 425, 68 A.L.R. 892; Lummus, J., in Com. v. Lopes, 31......
-
Lancey v. United States, 19854.
...required to constitute the required concealment. Bratton v. United States, 73 F.2d 795 (10th Cir. 1934). And cf. United States v. Thornton, 178 F. Supp. 42 (E.D.N.Y.1959); United States v. Worcester, 190 F.Supp. 548 (D.Mass. 1961); Grudin v. United States, 198 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. Here it may......
-
State v. Walker, 55552
...Ind. 210, 102 N.E.2d 650, 653 (1952); United States v. Foy, 416 F.2d 940, 941, 16 A.L.R.Fed. 249 (7th Cir. 1969); United States v. Thornton, 178 F.Supp. 42, 43 (E.D.N.Y.1959); United States v. Shapiro, 113 F.2d 891, 893, 130 A.L.R. 147 (2d Cir. 1940); United States v. Biami, 243 F.Supp. 917......