Ballard v. United States

I say think desirable to that we not when either violations prevent that, prevent continuance here if the deciding wording or occur about after not bound hearing The trial court had not been notice sufficient begun. they have requirements of be thus persons, understood such by the strict private developed (so notice equity been valid that the as traditional to order appellants) merely whether not would have bound deciding but in litigation type of case because of injunction interpretations.1 administrative grant an I injunc- For think doctrine consider whether Skidmore also should Co., aid as the v. Swift & reasonably required 323 U.S. 65 S.Ct. tion statute, dealing to the end and of other cases weight administration purposes interpretations, underly- accorded such Congressional relate interpretations not be thwarted. to such reg shall statutes or its enactment ing Co., supra, pursuant 323 U.S. ulations or orders made Skidmore Swift to stat See utes, and 133-140, 161-164. a notice of an at administra hearing. tive proof such think was at We appellant does prima facie. The least dispute adequate seriously that there the order in its violation of employment of homeworkers respect special obtaining the certifi first without wage required provided the ordеr cates to its failure applicable. The BALLARD et al. v. UNITED STATES. preserve records is keep accurate No. 10059. regarding That clearly sufficient. also paid wages homework em rates Appeals, Circuit Court of Ninth Circuit. strong, is found in though ployees, Dec. 1945. 26. Wage inspectors of affidavits of Certiorari Granted March 1946. Writ employees who interviewed Hour Division fairly in some time tests which 66 S.Ct. made See piece work rate em that at the dicated paid they not receive at did ployees were forty wages cents an minimum least the parts of af that some It is true hour. hearsay taken a whole fidavits were certainty least reasonable show the violating the order appellant was opposing respect affidavits and its by the trial a conclusion did not make That afforded at all unreasonable. exercise discre for its a sufficient basis fairly to prevent further violations tion be prima out the facie expected and made Ward, Cir., Montgomery Bowles v. case. 143 F.2d 38. Affirmed.

FRANK, Judge (concurring). Circuit by the Administrator notice led hearing to his or- public which part his or- worded was der der foregoing opinion. quoted in the adequate gave notice hear-

think it meaning appellants because of ing “passementerie” as it wоrd ap- like been understood opinion. stated in the pellants, reasons unpublished hearing Certainly interpretations before began. 942 upon religion would encroach the field of jury and that the before the was not issue happenings truth to the powers appellants’ or in belief import A them. statement of this jury conference cham- after judge coun- presiding between the bers parties. theory sel This for all of the is- throughout consistently sue was adhered to to the trial and addresses counsel’s judge’s jury incorporated in and was charge jury. Throughout to the the trial objection by either issue; record discloses no party to such treatment of dissenting.

DENMAN, Judge, Circuit complete agreement there- rather shows Only defend- with. later did counsel for regard claim ants error to it. The majority upon this of this court reversed point although alone in the there were other points appeal. Upon certiorari from the United States Court this court was reversed court, Ballard, a divided United States v. 322 U.S. L.Ed. pre- Douglas 1148. Mr. wrote Justice opinion, vailing which was concurred Reed, Black, Murphy, Mr. Justices opinion In Rutledge. Douglas try his Mr. Justice agreed held that counsel had case ruling under above right ferred to and that the held court was permitting in not of the trial to the truth happenings possession the claimed powers right claimed even in the and would have agreement absence of an upon, end. He ques- that tion whether or unruled left Rank, Joseph Woolley, F. Rich Roland construction Curren, Angeles, Ralph all of Los C. the issues an amendment to the effected Cal., appellant. indictment. The was remanded us Gen., Clark, Atty. Robert Asst. questions Tom C. to rule and all other Asst, Gen., Atty. Beatrice Erdahl, Sp. prevailing opinion. S. treated Justice, Atty., Dept, of Rosenberg, Mr. Chief Stone in an dissented Justice Carter, C., Washington, M. D. James opinion concurred Mr. Rob- Justice ‍​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‍Cal., Angeles, Atty., Los U. S. Asst. appellee. erts and Mr. Frankfurter. Justice concurring Chief with his associ- Justice thought ates there was no error in the trial DENMAN, MATHEWS, and Before for a reversal of and held this court and STEPHENS, Judges. Circuit the affirmance of the conviction. Mr. Jus- tice a flat was for reversal of the STEPHENS, Judge. Circuit Jackson up- dismissal the cause conviction convicted and sentenced Appellants were ground neither truth of U.S.C.A. § violation religion genuineness professed nor the of a prohibits the use statute religion subject can be belief mails in fraudulent transac- States posture inquiry. is the Such appeal judg- Upon this court the tions. reached us for our case as it sеcond con- reversed, Judge conviction ment of sideration. dissenting, F.2d 540. Stephens gave trial, consideration we Upon our second ruled that course of record, briefs, argument, oral and es- into the truth of certain claimed inquiry expressions powers pecially the several certain happenings Jus- majority ques- came consideration study, tices, earnest religious exper- of con- tion alleged whether judgment the conclusion occurred, Also, in view iences had in but submitted fact affirmed. viction should single peti- of the Su- issue whether members fact expres- divergent honestly tioners believed that had oc- had preme Court case, curred, we with the instruction that if views of the the as sions find, writing did not then it should return a custom depart from the chose to verdict guilty. On this issue the opinion, confined ourselves so we an ample respondents in was not evidence that were Judge Denman conclusions. without in majority he wrote belief the agreement statements with the victims, had to their found verdict opinion several is- made a fully discussing the guilty. The state of one’s mind is a fact sues the case. capable misrepresentation as of fraudulent necessity of now under the court is This physical as is one’s condition or the state appellants upon petition ruling in which bodily worthy of his health.” It is of note rehearing and after urge grant a that we that suggested the Chief that there Justice express upon rehearing we views that our points were any in the case distinct from yield to of the case. We the several issues religious note that case could not plea part, by ourselves expressing this in by any be ruling relating affected exclusive- issues, upon we need but because no see ly religion. because, after hearing further fur- for consideration, Chief majority ther treated issues adheres Justice upon appeal, raised decision, among them deny petition for re- effect we upon the indictment hearing. ques- of the court’s tioned instruction. He found no error and with his con Justice, The Chief did not doubt indictment’s continued associates, affirm voting to in curring validity. It presumptuous, sound for conviction, necessarily considered us members of as an intermediary upon ap raised every issue upon passed say that regard we the Chief Justice’s is con final outcome peal. Insofar treatment questions of these satisfactory in con cerned, wise was in no opinion his and as errorless. Douglas. Mr. Mr. with that flict Justice that coun found Douglas points appeal Two were not Justice the trial agreed to had parties all sel for opinions in writ of the mentioned phase religious expression court’s Supreme Court, ten members expression was but held the case regarded as our dissent- each is decisive passed Chief legally correct. Justice He ting associate. thinks conduct of (322 comment point following attorney argument district in his re the quires 888, page 88 L. 64 S.Ct. at page at opinion It is reversal. if supra) : “Obvious opinion, his Ed. prosecution argument the conduct of the in religious whether ly question if the error, then, in this constitutes case could not con occurred experiences fact in prosecution every in case is limited to to the stitutionally been submitted listless, vigorless summation of fact it. rightly withdrew If jury the court politeness. Chesterfieldian Gone are the submitted, I know of no have been could days great logic advocates whose not, with the why parties could reason glowed and flowed with the heat of counsel, to its withdrawal assent advice Gone, except forensics! counsel jury.” Courts, jealous the defense. rights accused as Court has well as with an eye member No appeal government wins, if the case which language decisive of the will used seldom Justice, admonish defense Chief counsel his conflicts with lachrymal appeal In the acquittal verdict of except Mr. lat- Jackson. Justice notwithstanding opinion it the evidence is held dissenting guilt. ter’s yet sincerity attorney Even will district propriety submitting no tried instead of the defendant professed belief court for de- and be guil of a found ty by defense Upon phase attorney having pros case the cision. superior tituted his (322 mind to says page per heartless U.S. at Chief Justice We think secution. that seldom supra) will an page L.Ed. : unjustly innocent man become a con “With the assent through heat vict judge defense trial withdrew from overstatement guilty attorney but argument precipitation referred a district if deserts just escape gold, jewels, his et cetera. claimed will doubt unduly restricted. attorney thereby the instruction the district violated matters, regard told argument opening Counsel .between to see the difference hard government jury: “The claims power claimed inti- and the racket, Ballard though, gentlemen, that this If mate association with saints. argument, Jesus it now might refer to as we precipitate gold, one claims be able to un- scheme that is Aim flam not, is, just get it that the from where it history. defendants paralleled These gold remain visible fakers the most successful have been put to his claim. But if one fаkery, history knowledge think that is ganizer Jesus,” the bur- that he “walks with or- principal tribute to impos- very den different if not would be To state- Edna W. Ballard.” this Defendant-appellants in carry. sible to this objected declined but ment defense counsel difficulty relieved from such case were objection. upon The court to his elaborate requirement was since the extent of permit going it told the that was the truth least should believe in may at argument, and that counsel fullest they taught, and things of the remarkable heat overstep times argument, themselves in for, got money and in connection with use its jury should that the mails. which States used the United evidence. judgment, having best Looking heard the prosecu- nothing argu- from the We in at the evidence discern counsel’s objected expression fully standpoint, tion ment either side not within on concepts of is mild. members honorable American bar. to believe least claim at defendants The done, have do, have they can dissenting holds that Our associate extremely remarkable experienced more it was error for the trial court reversible any things than and unusual proceed jury selected trial with a way from reli- all history things — intentionally up from a list made have generally what gious miracles to stated, only. males point As heretofore magic, charlatanry, black to as referred presented was raised the Su Jackson, potions, et cetera. love who Justice preme mention in Court and upon legal- the case dismiss any opinions. In the cir Justices’ reasons, restrain does philosophical cumstances find no of this we error. case evi- expressing his view the himself petition rehearing denied. says formality of an dence when he say “I defend- opinion: should official DENMAN, Judge (dissenting). Circuit which just that for have done ants are indicted. * * * only I can I dissent see decision but humbug, untainted teachings nothing also but from refusal of re- this spond requirement Supreme Nothing said by any truth.” trace deeply “pass bites this Court that government counsel we on” important questions raised but not de- statement. court, but, addition, give cided Neukom closing Mr. In his address “benefit that Court the views” says: your counsel “Let government them. people who warning to those be a verdict requirement language is: Let’s clean racketeers. would be temple.” “Respondents maintain that reversal money-changers from the out the justified judgment of conviction have toleration and Again he said: “We of on other grounds. people, have distinct The Circuit it feeling for all ques- pleasant prosecute Appeals people, did not those It Court reach isn’t them. and defense) Respondents course, (for may, it Mr. urge think is. Cannon don’t tions. them here support judgment the hard side is the defense. said * * * Appeals. Gentlemen, you you, if heart in it the Circuit Court prosecute entirely It hard to But since attention was on the (cid:127)isn’t so. centered discussed, Again: “We we have true.” which people, and issues the re- concepts, questions just got gentlemen. maining fully presented human you to be intolerant of this Court want these to either in the briefs I don’t or oral you good I want your argument. to use In view people, of these circumstances appropriate counsel for One deem more sense.” we remand Appeals accompanied (a) ques- Court to the Circuit cause pass questions tioning par- of Donald his Ballard * * * questions im- ticipancy If any another served. miraculous occurrence here, presented portance answer, survive and are critical comment on his (b) views sneering mockery appellants’ we will then have the be- benefit of Appeals. Until lief in power of the Circuit Court the divine of ascension of had, we the body that additional consideration being; (c) by a human de- necessary to because, сannot it will be be sure that mand for a prose- conviction is- pass cuting the other constitutional attorney assured respondents to have re- claim sues had been a conviction what his (Emphasis supplied.) United served.” knowledge had been a similar decided Ballard, before; States v. S.Ct. 25 years (d) by a further de- 882, 887, 88 L.Ed. 1148. up mand keep conviction to troops morale of fighting abroad decision of obvious war, (e) repeated mocking the world questions three court that constitutional ap and degrading considered, characterizations importance, later survive for pellants. the consideration Court. language I from this court dissent of This succession of violations of desiccating Supreme require- Court’s rights of the defendants continued over point court to ment where this do to days two and two noon in- recesses. The upon” questions no more “rule re- tervening in the deliberations recesses manded to us our views. overnight led continuance no withdrawal to by previous any of of Supreme be- Court has held that they or false abuses issues raised. Mr. free- Instead cause Ballard have the Mrs. through closing argument. continued religion of First dom created act, single is no they prove possibly Here unfair ex- Amendment free that to argument sug- cusable in the they experienced participated heat of gested opinion divinely “happenings” certain the court. Here to derived days are two they honestly good that deliberate continued and in faith striking of the they happened. Berger unfair blows of believed had States, 88, 78, 629, United 295 55 U.S. S.Ct. Since the are not Ballards free make L.Ed. Viereck v. United powerful obviously persuasive such States, proof good faith, pre- of their the record L.Ed. 734. questions sents three of claimed violations I rights appellants, ruling dissent from this court’s against constitutional ably cogently argued by prosecution’s pro- this claimed counsel. error pro- stating any All without three are concerned with the due cess facts conduct, such unfair cess clause of the set forth in appel- Fifth Amendment and briefs, lants’ or giving them religion two court’s on the freedom views provision any many Supreme Amendment. cases in the the First appellants’ other federal sustaining courts (A) Though denied such freedom specified contentions as to each abuse proof happenings, of such trial court process. that permitted only jurors wheth- ask er such divine happenings I ac- further had dissent from the char- court’s tually occurred but itself asked a acterization of such witness accumulating abuse of participated process whether them, he had federal or Anglo Saxon per- prosecution then stated that and mitted counsel being fully would be “within the con- argue question cepts of honorable members of the Amer- whether there had been happenings. Though bar.” ican perhaps understandable This was followed calculated bitter excusable, individual instances peated denunciations of the it Ballards be- not commendable conduct within the they cause concepts had not factory, failed to make or forecastle proof of the miraculous occurrence in the Lord Chesterfield’s drawing room. past but also they because not caused had respect, In this without minimizing the occur jury during before right of the to a Ballards reversal on this course of the trial. ground, one must consider behalf of This violation judge prosecutors court of the domin- both the and the ruling ant of that excluding peculiar difficulty mental separating religion, be- from a experiences defendants’ freedom miraculous fact of persuasive most The trial court’s free to introduce the lief occurred. that . jus- minority honesty faith— good four of their ruling, with which is, extraordinary participаted in actually appear disagree, is tices an surprising happenings. miraculous one of first It is instance. court, prosecution, as also con- This court nowhere considers impossible to mentally seemed to find view of but confines itself to the tention three-justice make the distinction which minority Ballards Jack- Justice says, son his dissent tried without happenings consented to be such miraculous place, and hence “In matter of either first as a indictment, raising only philosophy see how construed as practice do not belief, question is valid. separate good be- faith in can as what is

(cid:127)we issue is I from what dissent the failure of this court lieved from considerations as * ** religious give its trywe views on this contention If believable. invalidity, verity, assuming we indictment’s sincerity from severed parties it be con- dispute very agreement of considerar isolate the provide experience more than stated charging common strued tions which opinion of the Chief most answer.” reliable Justice. Ballard, apart requirement supra, Entirely 322 U.S States v. 88 L. page the important questions Court our views pages 64 S.Ct. .(cid:127)at extraordinary Ed. case, I of this dissent from the refusal “important question” (B) second give in a considered cogently its views “views” is the abuse to us fоr our (cid:127)referred opinion upon such contentions process by the exclusion prosecuting any appeal fortiori urged here in —a of all women from ’by the court’s order appeal. criminal Six of the a seven states Appellants’ cogently jury panel. briefs (cid:127)the requiring of this circuit have enacted laws forcefully present argument their (cid:127)and appellate opin such their courts to render that here was ab (cid:127)supporting authorities rulings they make.1 re ions Supreme process within the due sence of give opin to fusal views in our a reasoned n Court’s Glasser decision precedent, only ion establishes a viola not States, L practice of tive established to .Ed. 680. practice of all established states give its only does This court not not Supreme circuit and of Court and other the Glasser case but does views appellate federal courts. opinion Its “Our states: (cid:127)even mention it. response Supreme In to re- Court’s re- associate holds that it was dissenting quirement expression follows the proceed court for the trial to versible error my ques- views three on the constitutional jury jury selected from a to trial a which, decision, tions under this court’s up intentionally only. list males made appellants survive to the for their assured * * * In the circumstances consideration on a second writ certior- find I from we no error.” dissent ari. court state its views to this refusal Supreme A. The misconduct prosecution benefit of the Court but for the effect, what, majority opin- attacking from prov- defendants for jury of bald ing ion cast in form a dissent elsewhere the before dissenting opinion. miraculous occurrences a reasoned were forbid- prove, den cmd in to other question (C) third is whether it is not A spects, violates due prosecuting process as religion and of due denial of freedom of as well the accuseds’ religion freedom of upon indict process defendants to constitutes reversible error. charge good “honestly of not and in faith holding i.e., Supreme things,” things Under believing those such experiences (cid:127)miraculously experienced shaking that miraculous Court could where, proved support Jesus, appel- the hand of not be to facts because of 1929; Oregon: VI, Constitution, Constitution, Am. Art. California: Article 4; Washington: VII, 4a; Constitution, 1-205, § Idaho Code § § Idaho: § IV, Arizona, 1932; § Article state, ‍​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‍Annotated Montana: seventh §§ practice supreme 1935; .8805, it is the of the Revised Codes of Montana opinions. Compiled render Laws § Nevada: Nevada powers, ability precipitation natural supernatural from “a miraculous in their lants’ belief state, riches, appear money, of the statements jury should be other material box prejtidicial that there needs.” From the highly prejudicial one of them defend- trial. The asked of of the reversal new one ants, question. just “I wanted statements concern absence They happenings. precipitated to ask the if ever two of the miraculous witness he appellants’ free- anything.” The witness’ answer did constitute a denial interprets satisfy juror repeated, religion that Court “Answer dom question. portion precipitate Amendment. you any- Did of the First thing?” constituting the eighteen Of facts indictment, the misrepresentations Whereupon the court abandoned its rul- represen- ing excluding held “The false Court which “speculate” charged eighteen in number. tations could “whether these incidents say point actually declaring happened.” sufficient Instead respondents’ alleged religious question covered doc- the happening the fact or beliefs.” trines “divine” miracle as irrelevant pursuit and its a denial accused’s “religious One these statements religious liberty, asked, the court itself paragraph (9) doctrines or beliefs” is you yourself precipitate?” “Did ever portion of the indictment describ- ing consniracy use mails de- charged conspirator’s answers are fraud, as follows: ques- irrelevant to the issue of area the open tions to be showed “(9) defendants, and each That Colloquy consideration. ensued and the represented them, part of further aas said juror stated, “Isn’t that something different scheme and artifice to defraud the from what we have been talking about as defrauded; intended to be that the three precipitation ruled, ?” The court then designated persons, Guy Bal- to-wit: W. “That going a matter the at- lard, lard, Ballard, W. Edna and Donald Bal- torneys on both argue sides supernatural ability had a divine and that precipitation] fact of [the will state, supernatural bring forth from a matter you gentlemen to decide.” riches, money, needs material mankind, power necessary to or con- When it argument, came one of supernatural dition and state the defend- prosecuting attorneys availed himself represented they ants that could transmit of this of the court license as to the area willing pay willing to to to therefor or others Referring discussion. to one or more part therefor; things of value alleged conspirators, of the he made the whereas truth and in the above fact following sneering remarks about the ab- designated none, knew well that any proof sence of of such defendants divine and neither, any nor all supernatural of them had such happening precipitation as the power ability precipita- or sunernaLiral precious metals: tion representations and all of said were “Betty Mundy doubt, has no Louise (Emphasis false sup- and fraudulent.” Majerus doubt, has no Donald Ballard plied.) messengers one the accredited of the upholds Court the district masters, ascended certainly and he ruling excluding from jury doubt, court’s evidence Ballard, and Mrs. big-wig, “representations concerning and chief the tainly organization, entire cer- experiences statements miraculous [of could have no doubt whatsoever—to might highly improbable seem to say nothing which] many people” of William Cassiere and Paul that and “Whether Stickell, these traveling those salesmen for the improbable] [highly hap- incidents actually Bailarás, they certainly would have no pened your consideration,” or not is not yet gentlemen, they managed have doubt— “They jury] and not going precipitate gold to to jewelsf [the be or they If speculate permitted have, actuality tо on the I submit that we should been have happening of those incidents.” (322 U. told about it here court. Possibly we page 81, 64 page 884, atS. S.Ct. at example should have L. had an pre- such 1148.) cipitation Ed. shown us.” “ * * * Despite warning of the district He himself had not been able they jurors, were speculating on precipitate, apparently he because improbable” “highly super- pure. divine sufficiently That same dog chas- Ballards again taunts prosecution Stickell yet Paul And tail. same ing the divine failing appointed pure to sufficiently fact had witnesses who healing by “producing Germain.” Saint messenger of grate- “were who actually been cured” * “* * that submit, gentlemen, I these incur- curing ful to the Ballards ac- Ballards, that it is if able diseases.” mas- ascended messengers of the credited the de- never violation climax to such As a who people ters, mighty those hap- beings the miraculous nial of mistakes, perfect those any made argu- prosecutor offered precipitate penings, been able liave should al- some testimony his own that one such ment precipitate able to money occurred, stating taking leged happening had not needs instead their is, “Now, light I don't much a cosmic what people who had poor know, catаclysm to me. afford but it sounds like a could they frequently more Angeles on gifts I I was knozo here Los through love And movement (Em- July and cata- July books.” purchase of through the any clysm not, I know there wasn’t or that supplied.) phasis great light striking cosmic wave of ruling court’s disregarding Again, place here Shrine Auditorium miraculous of such a the truth regarding supplied.) at that (Emphasis time.” argu- built prosecution happening, the Later, he prose- closing argument, the Ballard’s denial upon Donald ment Also, meet again ezñdcnce cutor offered his ascended. ever in fact had Sr., similarly charged Ballard, conviction of Mr. the statement master, conviction, stating suggests a like ascended with the communion Don- years Germain, ago Ballard and “About in California St. “Mrs. visible, tang- people group two— think have stood ald and ible, —I mas- prosecuted presence They mail claimed our blessed ascended fraud. God, times,” many, be the sons of had the many ter Saint Germain “Now, power Elijah, did mantle that the prosecution stated to the Moses them, experiences or had fallen had Donald Ballard have Jesus keys know kingdom They ? reasons zve didn’t he heaven. One prosecuted convicted, were expriences was that he didn’t have these experienced practiced gentlemen. actor There are others. This wasn’t the (Em- nothing going Mrs. was.” this is Ballard unusual. And Edna W. list, (Em- supplied.) more I believe.” phasis phasis supplied.) Again, against the issue excluded prosecu- happenings, supernatural power As actuality to the claimed ascend, opening part argument of defendants’ claimed tion belief, Ballard religious that Mrs. mockingly failed to show gods” in “actually exciting with the did associate describes it as was “Ascension an “Now, course, argument: painless following thing. the and adventurous sort of actually death, if Mrs. Ballard did associate pass through wouldn’t have to You gods, you can understand how first, the well became until Mr. Ballard at least at people joined move- various that the go- these quite that was it was evident ill and would die; movement and join the you just up sort rise ing would ment movement; think I don’t but stay in the be able to come back and air and would evidence think the I don’t did, desired, you and forth become or she invisible as (Emphasis supplied.) Superman did.” visible, shows that she that you as wished. does very interesting frequently, and it re- argument closing this 'the In * * exciting thing sort statement, “People were the iterated And under the instruction these teach- they would follow if that told religious beliefs “the ascend, that they knew they would ings cаnnot in this defendants be an issue is a faith. that bad And couldn’t. they court.” anyone that ascended that isn’t There (Emphasis supplied.) here.” know you complete the succession violations To process by prosecution, the of due one of supernatural power healing the As to prosecutors argument finished his sick, in the indictment con- the charged as the conviction proposing more because we were Supreme Court as no by the strued gentlemen trying “You believed, then at but war. are something

949 argument on “In by stating add the heat might I important case this case—this probably both sides counsel will country is make very —in unusual times. the fully do not conform marks that makes sort war. And case of this at that, Lawyers will and even evidence. do the de- upon you that here to see devolve argu- will heat of do that you individuals if find are convicted that fendants general give you that cau- just ment. are those who guilty so that of fraud are tion, good I think with sense that country will fighting find for intelligence you if find to worth something come back extraordinary extreme or statements (Emphasis supplied.) fighting for." made, you disregard will those actuality Having thus discussed upon pass judgment statements and nonactuality of area so these events interpreted counsel." evidencе as court, though licensed the discussion What was evidence “inter- so to be by it happenings of such as is held facts preted” obviously included the facts of as- Supreme and the Court as an invasion precipitation, upon cension and of accused, religious freedom of the jurors court itself and one had attorney prosecuting repeatedly followed interrogated one witnesses. Since intemperate with such discussion highly beginning thus at the prejudicial Mrs. denunciations of argument “pass advised it was to “glib” “adept prevarica Ballard as and an tor;” judgment upon interpreted as “the as most faker successful counsel," here history cheat,” fakery,” announced “a license to “a charlatan” upon comment religious “a evidence of such divine racketeer.”2 supernatural as the ascension of facts If of the facts of a divine body precipitation. per- precipitation or ascension had been missible, possibly Clearly, is a as such denunciations case where truth prosecutor’s religious experiences within extension his entered area prejudice privilege passion which the as United States established Co., sought Socony-Vacuum v. Oil 310 to avoid. U.S. Court’s decision States, 60 84 L.Ed. Viereck a case v. United Here 561, 566, poisonous argument, 63 S.Ct. L. additions an based large part which, Supreme Court held statements Ed. where the under holding Supreme Court, prejudice” “passion so of such that coun violative right accuseds’ sel’s discourse on have been liberty. stopped by waiting “without objection.”3 an argument At beginning court, ap- suggestion the district To the overruling the instant case pellants’ objection strong against first Ballards the character prosecution’s argument, apply, Viereck does an- concluded waiting following objection. cases ‘The were reversals Attorney language: representative States Volkmor v. United States, Cir., 595; ordinary party not of 13 E.2d de an. to a contro versy, “skunk,” “cheap, sovereignty fendant scaly, slimy called whose ob ligation govern Burnham, impartially crook.” Rouse com pelling Cir., 713; physician obligation govern all; 51 F.2d doctor,” interest, therefore, called a “crooked defendant had whose a crim prosecution common, “all of inal not that the earmarks a ordi is it shall win justice nary, liar,” parties case, that a but shall enthusiastic were be done. peculiar such, very “rascals and scoundrels.” As he is in a London Guar and Woelfle, Cir., law, antee servant Co. v. 8 83 F.2d definite sense the .325, 339; guilt doсtors “stood there a the twofold aim which that like of is escape bunch of sharks.” shall or innocence He suffer. 3 passion may prej- prosecute “At a time when and earnestness heightened by vigor indeed, But, diee are he should emotions stirred do so. — he, participation great war, blows, we while he strike hard a is liberty do not doubt that not at to strike foul ones. remarks ad- It is jury highly prejudi- duty to to dressed cial, the as his refrain from were much im produce they proper were calculated to offensive the methods to dignity good wrongful order with all conviction it is to a as use proceedings every legitimate bring means to in court should about be conducted. judge just Berger States, We think that the v. one.’ United trial stopped 88, 633, 78, 629, counsel’s discourse 55 S.Ct. without 295 U.S. 79

950 ex- 'jurors having a It is women were admitted all to is swer jury petit lists grand it well would cluded from the religious belief miracles grand jury indicting and de- from which effect of the the weak one. The appear jury selected. the the were prosecution trying is Ballards attack vastating stipulated in the It was the discrimination non-belief to be measured approval with the mormon was intentional —that is Bible or miracles District court of the Southern Joseph Smith. Hughes, 321 v. Cf. Snowden California. is misconduct It view 1, 397, 8, 497. U.S. 64 88 S.Ct. L.Ed. con- judgments requires rеversal of the the Ballards. victing process The that due Ballards contend process due indictment of woman (B) trial It a violation conspiring together her to son for Amendment im- clause of Fifth misrepresent religious to their beliefs Sixth Amendment as partial jury clause of requires jury clerk jury the district court’s court and clerk court, against commissioner, to discriminate commissioner on the order making up jury It all women lists.4 exclude lists one-half a matter indifference whether is all the women— is all —that upon claim based the Fifth Sixth eligible trial mother and son they It obvious Amendments. charge misrepresenting on the process jury-consti experiences been denied due miracu- beliefs portion process if tuting prosecuting character. lous defenses filing volved briefed ination On cution. ground hearing lenged lenge prevent consideration errors 713; stitutional Ins. made and taken. of the taken. indictment error served L.Ed. Rouse v. the trial 316, Ed. 8 6 United following R stopped The 4 That the court sua Cir., Cir., dismiss The 706.” a dismissal 93 Co. . Co. 318, London Guarantee Co. v. in Supreme 1314. opening that, motion to by assigning States, was denied. The denials A.L.R. At 86 F.2d second 83 F.2d Ballards’ our consideration here the entire v. Burnham, cases: 49 (Emphasis relied on the were overruled questions the close of Kelly, Cir., constitutionаl criminal though denied. v. supplemental S.Ct. was Compare first. argument 471. same brief 6 Ballards hearing Court Johnson, here Pierce v. United Cir., upon, on both 949, 952; ground quash motion 8 300, 302, 10 jury panel brief, reserved as were supplied.) ground. At the sponte should have cases and an assigned 13 F.2d Exceptions does not so treat involved on Cir., 344; the district court New York Central appeal and the of this trial above claimed 279 now .seeks brief. questions 70 grounds 51 F.2d based held Yolkmor Aetna opening 303, quash chal- The chal- F.2d until exception 594, 595; the con- here re- assigned pressed. Woelfle, discrim- detailed motion motion States, prose- error. 73 were fully first Life 709, 310, the in- L. v. ing questions, jury of the indictment fundamental Giles will consider account of discrimination in bership tice it.” ground by demurrer. applying 60, 64, 19 Ann.Cas. of error both tions tion to 860, 861; pealable assignment presented “ * * ^[*] Our own 16, error. S. Cir., even The no 349, Cir., Glasser v. United a motion to Supreme 61 consideration of the Bill of on 26 F.2d these cases v. United where motion for government 62 S.Ct. quash States, ‍​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‍Cir., appellate court, Conway Weems v. United 362, here appeal order. quash in the to a motion Sibbach v. rule is that even where claiming Marco v. United If “far 705. 30 S.Ct. was nature that Court considered urged, the indictment. an error reserved here F.2d they was a defect on the grand from denial of the mo- miscarriage composition 457, States, trial quash plain 316. enough If also and hence relies that an order were Rights amendments, 86 directed verdict Wilson, a are eonstruable as there ground 544, the constitutional v. by assignment States, an indictment on L.Ed. seeks to 9 error of such a 85 L.Ed. 479. we and Tudor United Cir., States, not. quash are overruled F.2d 54 L.Ed. is not an 312 U.S. 680, should no error subject see there the mem- States, two cases the claim 315 U.S. 144 F.2d justice.” reserved prevent on the States, 217 U. where grand deny- here, here, face 793, mo- ap- we 1,

951 require- rights As “gradual process.” is are not valid under also a the lists by Hughes stated at- Amendment. Chief the Sixth ments Justice tempt to rights fix those “due such jury requires that the Amendment That process” formulae, by such mathematical representative of “body truly shall be a provided by great formulae “are not organ communitythat “not the it the of is concepts of as ‘inter- Constitution and made any special group class” or commerce,’ ‘equal process,’ pro- state ‘due “tendencies, how matter up without In maintaining tection.’ the balance of jurors by slight, toward the selection limitations, grants and it constitutional process which method than a is inevitable that should define their we representative will insure trial a applications in- gradual process in the (Emphasis supplied.) Otherwise of Co. v. group.” clusion and Cruz exclusion.’’ Santa jury will be the selection of Board, 453, 467, Labor 303 U.S. 58 S.Ct. processes “undermining weakening the the institution of 656, 660, (Emphasis sup- 82 L.Ed. 954. jury trial” “should be which plied.) sturdily Glasser resisted.” v. States, 472, 457, 315 62 S.Ct. U.S. One to read does need Muller 86 L.Ed. 680. Oregon, 412, 324, 208 28 52 L. Ed. many statement of the law was Ann.Cas. or the This made regulations considering whether the Sixth Amendment the statutes of the states of violated this circuit for the omission of all women maximum estab- hours and lishing grand jury nearly wage from the all a minimum women for women to jury trial lists. It is realize the inconceiv basic differences social func- speaking able women Court tion between men our social 6To vacuo.5 me the Glasser What pertinent statement life. bear that women here “impartial clear that today jury” average family makes children. In n drawn, Sixth jurors Amendment as one souls of chil- determinants the grand early character of the dren their infant and adolescent jury “truly representa trial lists and tive of bodies teaching lasting receive the first most the community” respect from their truths qualified exclusion therefrom of mothers. major women. the same families the social function of men concerned with all progressive concepts Like things, largely the creation of material Rights, area and content of the Bill of it is housing food and clothing and chil- quite likely founding would not fathers dren’s bodies. recognized validity of this state- ment of law. public ninety-five per over In the schools also a fact grammar that in California primary women cent of the school participated governmental In the teachers are women. churches of by grand juries religions function indictment of women and all numbers attend- petit juries trial twenty-eight vastly years. on ants divine service exceed men. Mana, In re Cf. large religious group Cal. The one and vital P. L.R.A.1918E, Joseph in America since Smith is created of the Christian Scientists founded realization to The of the contribution of woman, Eddy. Mary Baker by a public women affairs of the state and gradual nation was growth. Bal recog- The excluded statements6 Mrs. The nition of accompanying Inspectors to the Postal as to her constitutional lard struction Just facts. larger “Mrs. Similarly this court ^[5] Thiel v. “Mr. Callahan subject matter what do a matter F.2d because number Ballard: unconstitutionality —not contained in the books, Southern Pacific Co., 9 you there was purposefully mean indifference, 786, disposed The dictation of the in- women [Postal in the recent ground that? law that we of a Inspector] but which is men on federal Cir., s solid lives hands stance vibrate with the same body tangible teach; ‍​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‍tion of ascended copy and Chicago. problem in arithmetic because in a tangible body. Mr. Ballard master go same as a teacher would dictate visible, Saint Germain you it. physical home and You body. can shake hands Saint Germain not, tangible can’t flesh, because density ascended You work say body came presence can out. it doesn’t physical dictated class master radia- shake in a with, is sub- is held that it be California cases have likely could quite experiences, religious in to exclude much reversible error California be jurors as regarded by woman jury petit grand and a all from on women inspired influence Jesus in are well summarized lists. These cases person as devoutly sainted sincere and Judge Yankwich in United opinion of Mary Baker many of the followers Ballard, D.C., F.Supp. v. that States It hers. matters' Eddy regarded Bal- testi- where another indictment other my viewpoint is there jury was unsuc- by preceding grand vile a and lards conspiracy mean

mony of a quashed strongest cessfully sought on it warrants some of women from ground I am of the absence prosecution. strictures ju- trial, is res jury grand That Ballard list. juror sitting woman dicata, against since there was no children five decision is who mother appeal. they could the the Ballards from which in them been instilled have whose knee interpreted by Mrs. as teachings of Jesus written Judge opinion was Yankwich’s Eddy. case, the Glasser before decision highly woman, sensitive Well could a supra. consider statements It fails to character, all spiritual rationalize supreme the last of the California as acquired by Ballard Mrs. money income Parman, cases, People 14 Cal. v. of these same teachings being devoted to where, 387, 388, after 92 P.2d 2d trust created profits are requirement stating that in California Jesus Eddy Christian Science Mrs. placed qualified women violently prej- From what Monitor. directory mandatory, and not lists is bigoted critics of Mrs. udiced and often compliance substantial it said “Failure of is the historic attack Eddy said in requirement] has shown not been [with founded, she as well the sect she rights her and prejudice to the nor does been indicted as Mrs. Ballard could have supplied.) appear(Emphasis defendant and been de- mail fraud statute under the apparent is prejudice The absence of there to her right testify nied the appellant was man from the facts experiences. charge jury of men on a tried important What is latest murder.7 this government argues certain every being perfect human all this earth and than more far finer and is body beings universe, physical of this divine It looks like a our own. eyes. your physical rea- because is true and other for no Saint Germain reality masters, I boar witness to the the same son. one of the ascended great beings beings, these this divine the ascended wisdom, are There other as Jesus. universe besides must love, beings. light, Man and who masters of are human something bigger wholly perfect and have this admit help something great- universe, that is instruction perfect mankind to become this you beings mankind, truth, tell the- there are also. I than er intelligence truth, nothing truth, whole but the this more universe beings perfect than know more and because human do not man and far how a universe this to or have not understood surrounded law man. We are greater presence law into the has come as- than ourselves. beings masters, it, take out and there are cended does not them order within greater greater make who its of the universe this law than man direct nor we, They untruth, admit You must nor falsifiers. in- manifestations. get mankind, dis- this mistakes structed us to with all instruction surely humanity ignorance, printed not all form where could have cord perusal beings in the universe. there are it for their own could the truth so each explained apply Now, Germain the law and individual. “Mr. Saint Callahan: you gave law and then for each dictations down, anybody just copied asked them have never to be- Wo lieve Mr. Ballard mean, just stenographer said, would do? We ‘Here us. you it, yourself apply law, Dechter will be- Just as Mr. Ballard: “Mrs. taking prac- your stenographer] them here. own its truth and [a pencil application help mankind harmon- the table with tical I sat at paper misery suffering ize, and other under them down took ” suffering.’ beings Germain now besides Saint ascended present California cases an- himself show Jesus dictated. equal prejudice. People have shaken lack several. We Shan- dictated and hands non, us in Cal. 263 P. He has held His man Him. con- men;. say real, murder that before and I victed He arms.

953 party ? supreme court is that that man Would of accused decision men, of wo- say the exclusion an working of court considers exclusion I.W.W., solely prejudicial. may listing jurors and the of jury lists of from men may men, impartial jury for case, give be business well be true in it If that a working charge the trial of man on a Ballards. trial of the true attempting passenger wreck train a However, courts held the California had during railway? against a strike Cf. prejudiсed by possibly be no one could States, Cir., Walker v. 383, 391; 8 93 F.2d United women from exclusion of the intentional Cir., States, Mamaux v. 6 United binding way it would in no 816, 264 F. 819. court. The dictum the federal district response contrary inquiry Su- to the the district preme supported by Court for our views on the the earlier Ballard case defense exclusion jury grand women from the statute which it relies. The petit juries in provisions controlling stat federal indictments trials of 8 son, a woman her solely utes are concerned with the states’ with evidence show- ing him influence, to be under “qualifications” jurors, charged her here California. require pur misrepresentation justify with ligious They regarding or their re- nowhere beliefs, poseful persons it view exclusion of half de- “qualified” is valid jury judgment lists because a fense and that the conviction should state court so be reversed. Though holds. necessary a likely prej- case of such significant, however 412 § udices, I am also accord what is recognizes Congress prejudice other than pages stated and held United 861 at and 862 of partial. making jury race as That sec- D.C., Roemig, States F.Supp. v. requires tion shall that the clerk be of a 857, federal discussing case cited political party different jury from the com- relying on Glasser v. United States. missioner. promi- Could be said that a Since, politician (C) party nent because indicted for a viola- men reli- giously impartial tion the election laws had an free free jury within the Sixth religious experiences, Amendment if their ais facts commissioner, clerk and though opposite denial due freedom affiliations, party purposefully process connived to charge them with defensive crime, exclude lists all members of which the misrep- essence ais People Manuel, Cal.App. 153, v. courts of tbe United States are sum- 308, forgery by P. woman convicted of moned.” jury showing” women, (Judicial Code, “in the absence of such “§ 412. section rights amended.) Same; Drawing. “that her substantial Manner of degree slightest prejudiced.” jurors, grand petit, were in the All such includ- Pelly, Cir., ing during Cf. United States v. 132 F. those summoned the session (decided ignoring court, publicly 2d since but of tbe shall be drawn States), Glasser v. men containing, con- from a box at the time of drawing, victed federal sedition violation of each the names of not less than by jury prejudice persons, possessing law of men where “no threo hundred * * * qualifications prescribed to defendants’ cause was shown in tbe section might readily preceding, exist where all last which names shall have * * * placed of defendants’ in- creed were therein the clerk of such tentionally court, duly qualified deputy clerk, excluded.” Wuichet or a commissioner, States, Cir., appointed by United man convicted 8 F.2d and a to be by selling judge judge thereof, stock fraud tbe or senior showing “prej- having of men in commission districts more rights.” judge, to bis udice than one which commissioner shall 8 (28 U.S.C.A.) (Judi good standing, residing “Section 411. be a citizen of 275.) Qualifi Code, Jurors, cial section tbe district in which such court Exemptions. held, cations and Jurors to serve well-known member of the States, principal political party courts the United in the district respectively, opposing each State same have the shall in which court is held subject qualifications, pro clerk, qualified duly to deputy contained, acting, may belong, visions hereinafter titled and be en clerk then jurors exemptions, duly qualified clerk, deputy same or a highest clerk, law in such State said commissioner each to place alternately, have and be entitled the time said box one name in jurors party when such service without reference to un- affiliations prospec- there then are here considered the the in resentation facts belief o£ analogous make-up tive and cases the experiences. such juries, necessarily federal view in the mml the Congrеss not did intend 2. Congress legislation. enacting in clever license the statute, effect, to fraud Supreme The trusting indictment under hamstrings swindler, represent to the who decision, Court’s innocent. happen- supernatural participation his loot, by ings, keep his and nevertheless may be every On American there wcmt fraining stating his expected belief Pro jurors of the Fundamentalist from they had occurred. testants, Episcopalians Catholics High who, reverence, complete each count devotion and demurred Bailarás to miracles; profoundly all believe in such “said ground that the indictment on the after them of offense in the Resurrection of an indictment does not state Jesus indictment, physical living presence each and his death on the face of said appears thereof, space, physically every fact in be count to touched heard; physically many will be of them of conviction which the facts ' n physical presence miraculously opinion truly statements sought are Francis, placed body stigmata St. belief, on the which are not sub- religious city was for whom the writer’s native Constitution of ject disproof under named, stigmata physically by an ex law of the the United States and by tra-material causation but measurаble land.” size; calipers depth as to must be demurrer validity of that miracles of innumerable Lourdes and of holding of light of determined many To the wine saints.9 of them charged that, be if one Supreme Court jars flowed from water from by false defraud mails using the wedding served the feasters at Jesus experi- religious one’s representations of potable Cana was as vine and prove the defense ences, may not in his actually consumed both believers and occurred. to have experiences unbelievers. Amendment, First my view that It is happenings are religious these To such potent proof of most denying a man so excita- projections of emotional no mere indict- innocence, violated his ment conjec- They “fanciful are tion. interpretation hold- An case. Baldwin, U. Borden’s Co. v. tures” of would convert valid indictment ing the 79 L.Ed. 281. S. torturing instru- into a Amendment First ment, cruelly space happen in fact in and time. They ac- hamstringing innocent believers, such many millions of To the escape le- attempt his cused clergy- integrity impugn the of their religiously antagon- woven jury. gal meshes preach priests, truth of men who grand istic happenings, to hold that Congress view that did is also frequently past in recent and occurred offense which creatе an intend to unlikely religious history or that are mangled accused innocent ,the tomorrow. Such to occur defense, government is also in his sympathy with a cleric’s ironic remark that prove represented right denied a miracle a miracle.” “It To them takes cruelly deceiv- venal and happenings provable are fact ing falsehoods. proved. statutes, prays respect judicial construction The writer for his his the neighbors’ fraudulent use of ap- and friends’ belief those here mails, Congress charged with presumed spiritual supernatural pearance of such be- knowledge of constitutional law on the ings profound is as theirs. If the enactments, minded, though were not so statutes’ writer First dates of compel expressed To Amendment would Court. at least a formal later respect, now Congress religious, not creat- that such the view that even reach penitentiary, escape offense described the indictment denied the ed required pedia (1913 ed.) states Volume whole shall be II number til placed Beatification in the article therein.” and Canoniza- experiences Dictionary Biographical miraculous tion that Hoi week’s 25,000 approximately sought among person canonized lists Saints recognized prerequisites. saints in the essential have been who Bmeyclo- The Catholic faiths. various law, the truth psychological appeal, right prove, in court for the services had not been begun experiences. the old cathedral was homely and intimate edifice familiar Others almost certain them since their infancy. also believe religionists are the who complete cardinal, The spirit with man is individual the bishops an two and some freedom, twenty world abiding of though moral in the French who un- Canadians Though physical English of derstood unbroken causation. willing heard and testify any presence break in the questioning material miraculous of the Judean chain, the believe that following causal also happenings: The Canadian carpenter pur- said, power self-denial, the moral the of “You here! I be- did not lieve, pose spirits of but service to other those your scars come hands political from swinging causes allevia- social and the you adz. What would tion have me plied, suffering of in the of creation do?” To which the other re- son, beauty, “My freedom from want aesthetic and of you what have been think- ing of rearrangements glory not mere evolutional of the of power the brutal of the primordial strong gases. over the weak among deepest is the of you sins. Pray may forgiven if ag- Also the on well be the you of your own free will truly believe, a pure the nostic and who be- materialists greater power will you come speak the inadequately composed lieve even response truth. your preaching to opinion, including punctuation cap- other such you sinners will find the italization, was pre-stellar in the framed pentant sending you generous funds start of the material causal chain. spend you will help for of the other victims From of last some two classes of greed.” of force and Thereupon the two jurors, the following offered defense to a carpenters, by side side, through walked charge defraud, of the use of the mails to aisle and out of the cathedral. many not unlike miracles of the of scores thousands established Later as facts in canoni- is an against indictment procedure, cal would be met Canadian the state- for use defraud, of the mails to ment, parlance returned common grand States "Maybe so, largely but show me.” influenced a clan of Americans are oppressing who race, the weak of a darker for a congregation is The assembled whom regard integral as not an Quebec. cathedral at mass in the ancient part protestant of a white Christiandom. there, congre- The cardinal The accused has hostility aroused for his aisle, seated, the central two gation are oppression. condemnation of Plis bishops, Baptist, other American principal appeal hap- ‍​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‍is the narration a Methodist. Seated across aisle is a penings in Quebec. cathedral He young carpenter of descent. German He letters, money, asked in mailed has product English-speak- of Canadian response their education and the school, thinking pride ing of the school, great generous. He founds a hav- power dominating people, of the German purpose ing an unusual chartered em- the destruction Rotterdam and of Lidice. —the higher paid ployment longer teachers and aisle, Suddenly, in empty there stands schooling for with the transmitted carpenter. in the flesh another He complex inferiority slaved, recently of the en- anyone nearby, like seated for he is clad neighbors for their free .of working carpenter’s clothes ancestors. craft some nineteen centuries Judea ago. projection He is not Society of either of The executive officеr bishop’s minds, Christians, they happened White whom accused has very denounced, thinking calmly prosecution, of their families testifies for the home, plain people carpenter doing job were most “That at who, bishops, me with the cardinal and wit- house and he told that he did not be- presence any the miraculous visi- lieve that happenings nessed oc- Perhaps agnostic psychiatrist carpenter an stand, tor. curred.” The takes the this, projection say he denies and testifies that he car- believes mind, preached praying for he was dinal’s his what conversations with carpenter. presence guidance. However, judge the ficulty visitor’s has dif- Judean congregation suppressing none laughter in the was under derisive hysteria impassioned emotional court room. mass repre- that he absence has not of his excused believed Thereupon, in the by the happenings sentations in the cathe- offers to jury, the defense bish- In the two dral. absence of such evidence cardinal, of the testimony of the belief, want offers cathedral’s ops twenty others cardinal, bishops, car- witnesses the two accused that what the congregation, concerning twenty present cathedral on his belief penter has said accused, actually had the heard, occasion described what he saw and testify happenings cites that the did not government seen and heard. occur. The Ballard, v. Ballard, refuses United States defense cites United States and, excluded, testimony holding that evidence, the admission since there is no the ac- preach carpenter free to while the cused Washington, did not be untrue what believe to happenings, mason founding represented occurred, he had to have other Carroll and the Catholic acquit. is instructed to abe denial it would decided fathers be if he religious freedom of his Congress, It having view that im- charged he is happenings which facts the puted knowledge Court’s verdict misrepresenting. The decision, could not have intended to create guilty follows. mail legislation fraud a crime in on the the law as which hand accused is de- indictment Such 2. potent nied such Court, effect, innocence Siopre-me construed on the other the man clever confidence the clever swindler. licenses finds what is license tantamount to a Congress has argued be It defraud the trusting. it has concluded the mails sanctified demurrer convicted should have sustained be better that one saint quash and the motion infirmity escape. The answer on the sinners hundred the indictment granted. rule not true that such a have been clear. procure sin- the conviction of the hundred Indeed, disproof of such since ners. denied, experiences is supernatural robbery of safe opened the door susceptible. trusting and may fab- personable confidence shark A he cathedral a scene just ricate cannot he knows that He visited. has sub- the stand and take compelled to his be- cross-examination jected to (cid:127) probate rec- PAC. & OIL CO. COAL death and TEXAS He seeks the lief. al. recently deceased MAYFIELD et the estates ords prop- or a small leaving insurance husbands No. 11438. children—(cid:127) wives and erty sustain their such victims— n Appeals, Fifth Circuit Court Circuit source of long established who are selects those widows then Jan. and emotionally susceptible. He gains an emo- by telling his belief them of tional control happenings cathedral in the takes over moneys their insurance or just charged the Bal- promises, with lards, give power will them the that he bring children and them care strength. maturity through in health time, have, widows for a comfort pretended guidance; celestial 'from the hunger distress of their children get convince them that they paid did not what He sent through for. has a letter mails is indicted. However, having the Ballard read de-

cision, anyone never intimated to

Case Details

Case Name: Ballard v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 25, 1946

Citation: 152 F.2d 941

Docket Number: 10059

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.