Williams v. United States, 5995.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5995.,5995. |
| Citation | 46 F.2d 731 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
R. A. Hendricks, Abe Aronovitz, and E. Max Goldstein, all of Miami, Fla. (Hendricks & Hendricks, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellants.
W. P. Hughes, U. S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., and Norman J. Morrison, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen.
Before FOSTER, Circuit Judge, and HUTCHESON and SIBLEY, District Judges.
Appellants were convicted on four counts of an indictment which charged in the first count transportation of some 800 cases of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes in two motorboats from a point to the grand jurors unknown to a point near Coral Gables in Dade county, Fla.; in the second count the importation of said liquor from a foreign country; in the third count the fraudulent concealment of said liquor; and in the fourth count a conspiracy to commit the several substantive offenses charged in the other counts. A general sentence of imprisonment for three years was imposed on each appellant. There are some 29 errors assigned, but it will be unnecessary to discuss them all.
At the outset, we must consider a motion by the government to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was allowed by the District Court on May 26, 1930, and the assignment of errors was not filed until the next day, May 27, 1930. In support of this our rule 11 is invoked. The said rule, so far as necessary to quote, is as follows:
In this case, the petition, order, and assignment were filed the same day. It is quite usual in taking appeals to present the petition and assignment of errors to the judge, and, after the order of appeal is granted, to file them with the clerk on a subsequent day. If they are filed with the clerk within a reasonable time, there is a substantial compliance with the rule, which is all that is required. The motion to dismiss will be denied.
One of the overt acts charged as having been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy was that Walter Williams endeavored to bribe one W. V. O. Bruen, a customs agent, to release him from arrest and permit him to land the cargoes of intoxicating liquors from the two motorboats. A special demurrer to this paragraph of the indictment was filed by Williams and overruled. In his opening statement to the jury, the United States attorney referred to this act by Williams, and on the trial evidence tending to support it was admitted over objection. Error is assigned to all of this.
It may be conceded that the allegation of this overt act was not sufficient to charge the offense of bribery or attempted bribery, but it was not necessary that it should do so. An overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy, sufficient to put it in motion, may be an act otherwise entirely innocent.
Both the district attorney and counsel for the defendant have the right to make opening statements in a criminal case, and it is not unusual for them to do so. Such statements within proper and reasonable bounds, which the court may control, have a tendency to clarify the issues and help the jury to a better understanding of evidence subsequently introduced. The United States attorney made it clear to the jury that he was merely stating what he expected to prove, and his remarks shown by the record were not improper.
The evidence of this transaction was admissible, not to prove the offense of bribery, but to show intention and as an admission of guilt. These assignments are without merit.
In the course of the trial, the defendant Wilson took the stand, and was asked on cross-examination if he had not been convicted of a felony and who was convicted with him in that case. Over objection, he answered that he had pleaded guilty in the same court, but did not know whether it was a felony or not, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Laurelli
...counsel's reference thereto in the opening statement, see United States v. Uram, 2 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 187, 189; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 1931, 46 F.2d 731, 732; Butler v. United States, 4 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 433, 435; Kraus v. United States, 8 Cir., 1937, 87 F.2d 11 A competent......
-
Dowling Bros. Distilling Co. v. United States
...of the Court. Walker v. United States, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 465, 470; Weiner v. United States, 3 Cir., 20 F.2d 522, 523; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 46 F.2d 731, 732; Edwards v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 402, 403; United States v. Waldon, 7 Cir., 114 F.2d 982; United States v. Skidm......
-
United States v. Bedgood, 71-2946 Summary Calendar.
...United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 737, 741; Kemp v. Government of Canal Zone, 5 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 938, 940; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 1931, 46 F.2d 731, 732. Cf. United States v. Justice, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 30, 32; Beaudine v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 417, 4......
-
Morton v. State
...86 So.2d 773; Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 770; Collins v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So.2d 718; Williams v. United States, 5 C.A.Fla.1931, 46 F.2d 731, and Whalen v. United States, 5 C.A.Fla.1966, 367 F.2d We quote briefly from these cases, beginning with Mead (text 86 So.......