Wyatt v. United States
| Citation | 23 F.2d 791 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 3646.,3646. |
| Parties | WYATT et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
George Wasser and Charles B. Prichard, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., P. K. Shaner, of Greensburg, Pa., and Warren H. Van Kirk, and H. D. Hirsh, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs in error.
John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and Joseph A. Richardson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The indictment, drawn under section 37 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 88) and containing only one count, charged 19 persons with conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to violate provisions of the National Prohibition Act. 41 Stat. 305 (27 USCA). Fifteen were tried, 12 were convicted and sentenced and 11 have joined in this writ of error.
The conspiracy, as alleged, extended from 1921 until the finding of the indictment in 1926; evidence of the defendants' participation within the period of the statute of limitation being, of course, necessary to conviction.
The situation which the United States disclosed by its testimony in proof of conspiracy was, to say the least, extraordinary. Shortly stated, it showed that peace officers — constables and police — in the city of Monessen, and in the boroughs of Wireton and Pricedale, state of Pennsylvania, had, through a period of years, engaged in a sort of progressive or revolving combination with illicit liquor dealers, changing in personnel as officials changed and dealers came and went, and that the peace officers demanded and received money from those violators of the law who were willing to pay for protection, whether illicit manufacturers, prosperous bootleggers or petty dealers. The ramifications of the operation were many and the inter-relation of those who in one way and another participated in it were varied, yet they were in the main traceable and certain.
The defendants contend, oddly enough, that this combination at times really effected enforcement of the National Prohibition Act, as, when a person had the temerity to make or sell liquor without paying for protection, his place was raided and his unlawful operations brought to an end. But aside from such a contention, made quite seriously, the defendants concede that on the testimony the jury might readily have found some of the defendants guilty of extortion — an offense under state law — and others separately guilty of substantive offenses against the National Prohibition Act, and that, indeed, the jury might have found separate groups of these defendants guilty of conspiring to commit offenses against the act. But they maintain that the evidence failed to prove that all had breathed together or conspired to do the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Erwin
... ... in defense of another prosecution for the same offense. See ... [120 P.2d 294] ... States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed ... 588; United States v. Hess , 124 U.S. 483, 8 ... 10 Cir. 67 F.2d 716, 718; Tinsley v. United ... States , 8 Cir., 43 F.2d 890; and Wyatt v ... United States , 3 Cir., 23 F.2d 791. All these cases ... are federal cases, and were ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Evans
... ... periodical estimates signed by Landsidle as general manager ... of Manu-Mine states that the work has been performed in ... accordance with the 'terms and conditions of the ... by their production.' Curcio v. United States, ... 354 U.S. 118, 122, 77 S.Ct. 1145, 1148, 1 L.Ed.2d 1225, 1229 ... The books and ... them, not made in their presence without the knowledge of any ... of them. Wyatt v. United States, 3 Cir., 23 F.2d ... 791; Com. v. Duffy, 1912, 49 Pa.Super. 344; Com ... v ... ...
-
Com. v. Evans
...or shown in any way to have been connected with them, not made in their presence without the knowledge of any of them. Wyatt v. United States, 3 Cir., 23 F.2d 791; Com. v. Duffy, 1912, 49 Pa.Super. 344; Com. v. Lynch, 1912, 49 Pa.Super. 370. One of our most fundamental and prize principles ......
-
United States v. Beck
...10 Cir., 100 F.2d 996; and Hewitt v. United States, 8 Cir., 110 F.2d 1. 2 Terry v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 28; Wyatt v. United States, 3 Cir., 23 F. 2d 791; Tinsley v. United States, 8 Cir., 43 F.2d 890; Dowdy v. United States, 4 Cir., 46 F.2d 417; Marcante v. United States, 10 Cir., ......