Prohibition
firmed.
the Northern District
United States for the Eastern Division
maintenance
Judge.
validated
2. Criminal
rate
manufacture, held
of National
evidence
sance count
der other
to show
guilt
tion
1923,
consistent with
sistent
an
to
ception
be otherwise
St. Ann.
pendent verdict,
each count
lawful
signed
ta,
1.
Donahue,
on
fect
dated
tion on
supported
count, consistent with
ently
ently
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
John J. Gozner was
Where indictment
A verdict
Verdict
Tf verdict
Verdict
precluding
as to each count must
Act,
under
and distinct
§
GOZNER v. UNITED
a distinct
Error
or mistake.
force of res
illogical, or based
by, findings as to other counts.
to be
guilt
Supp. 1923,
10138%jj),
counts.
tit.
subsequent count.
Court of
counts
fact or mistake of
Prohibition
is in
law
prior
law
law
of nuisance
law
unreasonable
November
thereunder
illogical,
acquittal
itself,
<©=878(4)
<8=881(1) Intelligible
inconsistent verdict.
evidence,
verdict.
<§=87í¡(l)
<§=878(4)
not to have
§
intelligible, and
tended to
counts.
indictment,
single
independent.
<©=878(4)
Judge,
in violation of
mere fact
judicata,
sufficiency or
establish
on other counts.
§
though
nuisance held
though
liquor
contains
District Court of the
(Oomp. St. Ann.
10138%jj)
Act,
under
or result of a
—'Verdict
indictment held
nuisance in violation
itself,
count of
valid,
also tended
dissenting.
count of indictment
convicted
liquor,
brings
Ohio;
1925.)
—Verdict
on count
—Each
establish
tit.
force of
—Conviction
precluding
apparently
National
and
misconception
STATES.
judgment,
Sixth Circuit.
several
though appar-
though appar-
supported
charging
Paul
21§
error. Af-
held not
validity.
of main-
limited
on
guilt un-
acquittal
charging
to show
Prohibi-
miscon-
as inde-
tending
(Oomp.
convic-
counts,
judica-
Jones,
incon-
invali-
not to
in ef-
single
Supp.
or to
sepa-
»F.(2d)
nui-
*1
v- UNITED STATES
mon
the nuisance count
intoxicating
land,
hibition
title,
tiff in error
sold, kept, or bartered
of title
building,
erty kept
violation
maintained a
tiff in error
under the
unlawful
fined,”
uor'; a.nd
2 of the National
place
ers
Judge.
tion Act
Grabien, Asst.
counts
cient
ond,
on
Circuit
designed The evidence
fenses covered
unlawful manufacture
common
error was
defendants
(Comp.
hereby
that defendants maintained
Upon
Section
Before DONAHUE and
Gerard J.
TUTTLE,
Upon the trial
four counts. The
(who
second,
plaintiff
any person who
nuisance
charged with
to sustain the
Ohio,
and all
intoxicating liquor
etc.
of this indictment.
inconsistent,
Act
St. Ann.
2 of the National Prohibition
Judges,
nuisance,
was
are not
the evidence the
(41
declared
possession
boat, vehicle,
nuisance
Bernsteen,
found
unlawful
intoxicating liquor;
title
provides
liquors
than
Stat.
shall be
jointly
nuisance, in
District
in error or his
used
fourth,
Pilliod,
conviction thereof shall be
U.
error.
by the first
title
parties
2 of the National
found
Supp'. 1923,
to be
at the
also tended to
United States.
307).
verdict, and that the ver-
Prohibition
were
and therefore void.
possession
on behalf
the cause the other two
indicted with two
U. S.
maintains such a com-
evidence
2 of
and sale counts.
Atty.,
Judge.
for use
first count
intoxicating
TUTTLE,
structure,
to this
place
maintenance of a
“any
committed
kept and
violation
Cleveland,
tending
intoxicating liq-
Atty.,
both
manufactured,
National
three
MOORMAN,
§
codefendants
room,
Act,
appeal)
on all
guilt
place
misdemean-
where
10138%jj)
show
and
of Cleve
first,
not suffi-
property
Prohibi-
plaintiff
District
sold
liquor;
posses-
counts.
house,
plain-
plain-
where
prop-
third,
same,
place
Ohio,
Fred
Pro-
four
title
oth-
sec-
Act
up-
"
*2
,
REPORTER,'
2d SERIES
.itself,'
ment
based' thereon
this entire
as the
to the
verdict are
dictment
dicts,
cannot
count. We
twofold, of at
that the
he could be convicted under the fourth count
nuisance)
[1,
sented. While it
ent elements
count is
intoxicating liquor, as
charging the
the
so inconsistent with the
sideration
derlying such contentions; it would seem
count;
as to the other offenses
the first
sion
a
manufacture,
from his contention
count;
as
to sustain the verdict of
effect that there was not sufficient
'
nuisance tended with
single,
2]
A
The claim of
notion either
contains several
of
conclusively
with or
subject-matter
operates
It is
rendered
or else
element or incident of an
various
the
and that
hut
in his
and not
subject-matter
by plaintiff
to 'Show him
in a
theory
containing
count;
innocence as to the
indivisible
liquor, as
nature of the
elementary that,
only
substance based
rest,
argument
of the unlawful
accept
the
count;
the foprth
subsequently
least has a
are fallacious and
of the court are not able
counts are
in the same
on which
questions
of fact then
the
regarded
in the last
both,
use
decided
is
escape
conviction
the contentions thus
several counts
in error to be constitu-
and it is
as
maintaining
that the
in the manufacture
judicata
charged in
findings of
a verdict
to
-charged (which
equal
reaching
easy
legal reasoning
in his
double
set
n
first-mentioned
analysis,
order
in
successive ver-
as
fact on which
each
of
and therefore
open
to understand
force
cannot
po.ssession or
only
fourth
in
forth
with
arp
nujsanee,
favor,'
Conclusions
charged
subsequent
a
aspect.
unlawfully
of such'
urged
erroneous.
the
and arises
its verdict
the
an indict
innocence
the
the other
designed
based is
respect
offense
so
in law
an in-
fourth
stand.
to the
those
third
leav-
time
pre-
con-
that
far
of
to
in in
is
force
dict of
sider the verdict of
cates
infallibility
mistake.
of the same
ity,
ciency
logical,
ency with
fact or mistake
jury, for the reason that
questions
what such
to
meaningless,
one
application of such
evidence to
ever, as in
tinct indictment.
limited nor affected
itself, although apparently inconsistent with
in its
is
is self-contradictory is
rule is,
effect
rule of law
verdict, separate
the
not be
the
single, particular count, if
sistent
[3]
respect
be otherwise unreasonable and
founded
means,
verdict
first, second,
finding
Neither can we
intended to be made
certain count of
It is
since the
least as much
one of the
count is
respect
does not
as to
as an
effect that
true
of them is incorrect there would
of a'verdict of
innocence
crime
must be considered as an
be
verdict,
or the result
possible
crime, since such
repugnant
equally clear
to one of such
In such a
intelligible
another
the case
of the
legal aspect,
the other
judicata
mistake
support
behalf
requiring
appears
plain,
jury finding
supreme,
necessity.
within
verdicts is
incorrect as there is to
(as
cannot,
of
jury
settled and
reason to consider the ver
It
really
judgment by
court. So the
nor
there is no room
rule.
law,
it
offense
by,
an indictment,
necessarily
verdict of
case,
in any
it,
and based
present system
of misconception
a jury
to
count,
counts. Viewed thus
as
so
that,a
simultaneous
the
verdicts,
sufficiency
the mere fact
were.
inconsistent. Such-
the
the
the 'court to
a
therefore,
improper.
to each one
with
not)
indefinite as
if it
'
it
A verdict which
part
innocence as to
erroneous,
meaning
true
correcting
counts has the
finding guilt
is not an incon-
consistent
findings
verdict on
(cid:127)
the
fails to show
the"argument
verdict must
its inconsist
Where,
independent
follows that
verdict on
determine
to
or valid
assumed-
the find-
be
in;
jury,
and not
of
even
of the
of
be
there
sense
error'
given
to
how-
indi
suffi
con
with
such
the
the
the
il
be
if.
to
lock v. United
tributed
which
nish
v. United
F. 871
wenthal United
posed of
ciding,
ed
6];A.
with reference
4
ly points out
which
Akers, 278 Mo.
ings
for the
We
150 F.
made before
trine,
henadel
149 Ga.
957
appear
convinces us that we are
basis either
Carrignan
Grey
proceed
fourth
C.
discover
In none of such
assumption,
F.
States,
States,
C. A. 415
States,
Gozner v. United States
9 F.2d 603
6th Cir.1925Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.