Wimberly v. United States, 9889.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9889.,9889. |
| Citation | 119 F.2d 713 |
| Parties | WIMBERLY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ben F. Roberts, Frank J. Looney, and Albert P. Garland, all of Shreveport, La., and Robert H. Wimberly, of Arcadia, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
In a pleading entitled "information and order to show cause", filed by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, appellant was charged with contempt of court. In substance, the information recites that appellant and four other named persons were indicted for using the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud; that the case was fixed for trial on November 18, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Lousiana, at Shreveport; that on November 16, 1940, appellant, in the presence of the said court and so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, corruptly endeavored to influence and impede one J. Arthur Tooke, a petit juror duly served and summoned for petit jury service in said court, beginning on November 18, 1940, in the discharge of his duties, and did endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in said court. In a summary proceeding, without the intervention of a jury, which was not waived, the District Judge found appellant guilty of contempt and sentenced him to serve a year and a day in a penitentiary. This appeal followed.
In support of the charge it was shown that Edward B. Gillon and John Tooke, a cousin of J. Arthur Tooke, went to the home of J. Arthur Tooke, near Zwolle, La., on November 17, 1940, and John Tooke spent several hours with him, later reporting to Gillon that he was "all right." Gillon also interviewed J. Arthur Tooke and reached the same conclusion. There was evidence tending to show that appellant put in motion a train of events leading up to this interview but he was not present. It is unnecessary to further review the evidence.
It is certain that if there was an attempt to influence J. Arthur Tooke so as to obstruct the administration of justice it was near Zwolle, some 60 miles from the court, which was not in session that day.
The court derives its jurisdiction and power to punish contempts committed so near the presence of the court as to obstruct the administration of justice from §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farese v. United States
......at page 52, 61 S.Ct. at page 817. Accord: Wimberly v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 713. But if the misconduct here found may be deemed to have been committed in the "presence" of the court, ......
-
In re Presentment by Grand Jury of Ellison, 44.
...it is contended, apply a ruling different from that which was applied in the Pendergast case and which is applied here. Wimberly v. United States, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 713; Warring v. Colpoys, App.D.C., 122 F.2d 642, 136 A.L.R. 1025; Millinocket Theatre, Inc., v. Kurson et al., D.C., 39 F.Supp.......
-
United States v. Welch, 8974.
...Consequently, the District Court had no power to punish their conduct summarily in contempt proceedings: Cf. Wimberly v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 713; Warring v. Colpoys, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 303, 122 F.2d 642, 136 A.L.R. 1025; McKee v. United States, 6 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d We nee......
-
United States v. Rees
...1954); Calvaresi v. U. S., 216 F.2d 891 (C.A.10, 1954); Warring v. Colpoys, 122 F.2d 642 (C.A.D.C., 1941) at p. 644; Wimberly v. U. S., 119 F.2d 713 (C.C.A.5, 1941); Schmidt v. U. S., 124 F.2d 177 (C.C.A. 6, 1941); Millinocket Theatre v. Kurson, 39 F.Supp. 979 Cammer v. U. S., 350 U.S. 399 ......