Wong Din v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 February 1905
• Docket Number: 1,097.
• Citation: 135 F. 702
• Parties: WONG DIN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

135 F. 702

WONG DIN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1,097.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 20, 1905

The plaintiff in error, whose true name is alleged to be unknown was jointly indicted with William F. Dasha, Thomas J Dempsey, and Thomas T. Burnett for the crime of conspiracy based upon section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676). The indictment, among other things, alleged that said defendants on August 8, 1903 at the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., 'did then and there wickedly, corruptly, unlawfully, and feloniously conspire, combine, confederate and agree together with divers other persons whose true names are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, to commit an offense against the United States; that is to say, to then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and knowingly aid and abet the landing in the United States, to wit, at the port of San Francisco, within the State and Northern District of California, from certain vessels the names of which are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, from divers ports and places in the Empire of China, the names of which said ports and places are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, the voyages of which said vessels from said ports and places had then and there terminated at said port of San Francisco, in the State and District aforesaid, of certain Chinese persons, subjects of the Emperor of China, whose names are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, and which said Chinese persons were not, nor was either of them, members of the classes of Chinese persons who were then and there permitted by the laws of the United States to enter and remain within the United States; and which said Chinese persons were then and there unlawfully in the United States.'

The overt act in furtherance of said conspiracy is alleged as follows: 'And that to effect the object of the said conspiracy, the said Wong Din, whose true name is to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, as aforesaid, heretofore, to wit, on the eighth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and three, * * * did then and there unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and feloniously pay and procure to be paid to the said Thomas T. Burnett, who was then and there a deputy sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, assigned to duty at the county jail of the said city and county, in which said county jail certain Chinese persons, whose true names are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, were then and there confined, * * * the sum of one thousand dollars * * * for the purpose and with the intent on the part of him, the said Wong Din, * * * of inducing the said Thomas T. Burnett and the said William F. Dasha and the said Thomas J. Dempsey to substitute, and cause and procure to be substituted, * * * for and in the place and stead of five certain Chinese persons whose true names are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown, who were then and there awaiting deportation as aforesaid, five certain Chinese persons other than and different from the Chinese persons who were then and there awaiting deportation to China as aforesaid, the true names of which said other and different Chinese persons are to the grand jurors aforesaid unknown.'

A severance was granted as to defendant Thomas T. Burnett. The case came up for trial as against the other defendants on April 6, 1904, and, after the impaneling of the jury, the defendant Dempsey asked for and obtained leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and to enter a plea of guilty. The plaintiff in error then asked and obtained leave to re-examine the jurors, in order to ascertain whether the change of plea by Dempsey would prejudice the jurors against him. One of the jurors, named Mohr, admitted that that fact so prejudiced him that he would be unable to give the plaintiff in error a fair and impartial trial, and this juror was then and there excused. The other 11 jurors each answered that the change of Dempsey's plea would not prejudice him against the defendant Wong Din. Thereafter, and before the 12 jurors had been selected, the defendant Dasha asked and obtained leave to change his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty. This being done, the plaintiff in error asked leave to re-examine the 11 jurors as to whether or not the change of the plea by defendant Dasha would prejudice the case as against him. This request was refused, and an exception was taken to this refusal. The vacancy in the jury was then filled, and the trial proceeded, resulting in a verdict of guilty.

S. C. Wright, T. C. West, and Bert Schlesinger, for plaintiff in error.

Marshall B. Woodworth, U.S. Atty.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

HAWLEY District Judge, after making the foregoing statement, .

It is claimed that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute any offense against the laws of the United States. It will be noticed from the indictment that the names of the Chinese persons whom it is alleged the plaintiff in error and his codefendants entered into a conspiracy to release are unknown, that the vessel from which they were to be landed is unknown, that the names of the Chinamen awaiting deportation from the county jail are unknown, and that the names of the Chinese persons to be substituted for and in place of the five Chinese persons awaiting deportation are unknown. It is contended that for these reasons the indictment is wholly insufficient.

Are these details essential to constitute the crime charged? Are they of a character that reaches the substance of the crime? No one questions the correctness of the principles for which the plaintiff in error contends-- that the accused in the indictment must be 'informed of the nature and cause of the accusations' against him, and that for this purpose all of the material facts and circumstances embraced in the definition of the offense must be stated. No essential of the crime can be omitted. The object of an indictment is to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge as will enable him to make his defense, to enable him to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against another prosecution for the same cause, and to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. These general principles have been frequently announced by the Supreme Court. United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S 360-362, 24 L.Ed. 819; United States v. Carll, 105...