Segurola v. United States
16 F.2d 563
1st Cir.
1926
Check Treatment

that Wilson this ease necessitates in the state ing as such nounced priation appears was correct the statute of thereafter until there was 1077; swer plaining Pueblo Indians of New law, cree should be of designates in the such That community such 594). Considering appropriation 207 and “a answer, Statutes at brought by a clear New Affirmed. Applying to “Comes now special P. C. Stat. Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.” complaint herein special attorney, special state court in behalf of the corporation signed Mexico” we 86 and 1063; Wilson, himself as denial attorney an of answer to court. congressional authorization Stat. in its determination and its Stat. Large the state special alleges that such was bound Pueblo and is exhibit, et attorney and and sworn to begins Supreme defendants, several acting in that the. thereof al. (30 territory Therefore, special reveal under and Appeals, stating that he is v. UNITED STATES. attorney, Indians, Stat. Pueblo “Special Stat. certified holding is the Stat. years 36 Stat. 278 conclusion that Court Mexico, and com- 38 Stat. 92 above facts by Congress for from this attorney 594). of New alleges.” *1 SEGUROLA v. UNITED STATES Pueblo by Wilson, 999; 940; First Circuit. complaint later de constituted question I Attorney for the absence adjudication same capacity. person was replication, Laguna, trial court complaint the latter Annually virtue of 31 Stat. than Mexico, for Indians pueblo. appro- record 16 F.(Sd) 1041; filed act- and an- an- Atty., ANDERSON, Atty., brief), for plaintiffs in error. Boston, co; the source he acted ants uncontradicted, legally rate the same United States for and other. appearance timony, tion. 2. Witnesses (cid:127) George Bingham, Circuit tences accept timony presents exception is saved. rested ant. on which he. acted. for Criminal Criminal Intoxicating San Before B.E. Wilcox and Salvador In Error Criminal Exception A Ira affirmed as to sentences for bring leave both of San and Jesus A. transporting. appellate state source of against Augustin which would Judgment Juan, seizing liquor K. for uncontradicted single of confidential information error. Reversed as to R. § law arresting BINGHAM, Wells, Judge. testimony, <@=>216— must be taken to Earnum, prosecution by to the District examine Porto is true Circuit liquors <@=>554Jury all <@=>1054(I) Objection to tes- (John say whether, transaction court. possessing and Judge, nothing second Juan, acquit not be Rico, conviction, defendant single Gonzalez, seized Police or false. — <@=>173Separate Judges. not be States. Asst. testimony dissenting. for JOHNSON, Gay, — present any ques- count. transporting held unauthorized. defendant was transaction. liquor not officer, who ar- U. review, unless Court of tbe of Porto Ri- overruling Mestre, Asst. U. Rico, and defend- the United guilt, though U. S. Dist. S. testifies, required to brief, Atty., expressly his tes- defend- requir- count, which sepa- both sen- an- il- of ANDERSON, Judge. Circuit On an in- pos- in two counts—the first for formation I. Criminal to fur- —Refusal nish defendants with of information for transporting session, liq- government held contrary to the National Prohibition Act uor Code, (Judicial versal as amended § seq.) St. 10138-/4et § defend- [Comp. 1246]). —both St. § Seguróla and ants, the court order Refusal of ex- be furnished formation guilty. Santiago $100 was fined under the charged misdemeanor, pense held to $200 under the second rights, so as affect not to proceedings. Segu- one-half the costs aof of convic- warrant reversal fined under the first róla was Code, as amended Judicial *2 REPORTER, FEDERAL 16 2d SERIES 564 formed whieh the fee requiring the same.” cused him. searched in United guróla vised with the where he post. Ceballos to block vermouth, and sation, and blocked ance backed his 951), of, in his pleaded court, “for the costs. speedy tion was tified went out to meet the seized and ernment When or at defendants’ lo compulsory the result of confidential information Buiek their the insular charge. This “That At Analogous The record shows facts as follows: Ceballos section they were n attorneys were shall which reads: Statutes, § Loiza, to order perfect favor.” Ceballos automobile, information court’s inspection, defendants counsel witnesses information reasserted, it, in all criminal sight, passed close of the provided to enjoy States v. ear, and collided defendants were construed Buiek first two right guilty, was, May 26, but ear, public, Ceballos took a Ford nature liberty reason that then Comp. him. ruling: provisions second, Sixth until clerk gin. request for his admitted in evidence. to be Seguróla effect that Seguróla, cut perfect approaching to be copies then arrested against him, by law.” pleaded to be trial, gave and an contention is assignments involve Van force. informed expected Organic any way and clause they to make trial this upon the §St. Amendment furnished requested that a and the other These furnished of the prosecutions “That, at the obtaining witnesses was refused thereof, defense, to chase, liberty in court Duzee, to be confronted reached maneuvered 3803aa. whisky, know of no law exception saved with an.electric arraigned, defendants On that Supreme Court have the assist- S'egurola, Act Buiek. When to have made and cer- liquors were by the court copies there- same conten- §St. information. and to have keeping Se- of the accu- payment in front of to examine them free thereupon attempted grounded (39 Stat. Carolina, an officer brandy, desired, Luquil- day, half of the ac- by the open in a aceusatipn; they past Re- by as accused shall enjoy indicted for indictment has 14,591], list of witnesses v. Hare those ter ments are without to sustain fense.’ ment be v. Williams United States v. constitutional pear fendants however, fendants’ the common carrying out the constitutional summon witnesses nesses shall be nesses their amending section be informed of the nature and cause of the There is affect the cess for eral the nature capital assistance of question, for at most it was harmless error. diced. Crim. Cranch, stitution, The defendants were not misled [Fed. done Probably a like It follows that the first and second practice the indictment “By custom in it was not indigent accordingly summoning witnesses, obligation witnesses either 1246), rights days Cas. Cas. No. obtaining be By at the Under C. C. section the Sixth Amendment to the Con [Fed. 4 Blatchford, 11 or no other unnecessary fin all criminal prosecutions, the counsel prisoner before his such technical errors as do not a and list of to furnish assistance of counsel for section a to be confronted with the wit it is the prisoners. defendants are entitled to have negative counsel, provision him; [Fed. capital contemplated Cas. No. delivered subpoenaed expense of the 16,756], 288. Nor been held St. to inform the There witnesses in his Bickford merit. Doubtless the bet- claims or retain counsel for to have statutory United States v. Wood construction rights Rico—that to conform to 'jurors. trial. There would Cas. No. been denied to offense, Judicial Code pregnant copies government expense. 760 is, 15,304], Wheeler, to him at Organic right has is he entitled to entitled at the Wash. C. C. or of this however, ancient rules merely jurors compulsory pro [Fed. object procuring the a United accusation, provision hitherto been flatly government.” obligation of L. Ed. [*] copy here, * * indictments, prisoner of a 16,712], Act. It 2 favor, should be parties. least two eases Cas. govern on this assign- a section preju- of the secure States States them; 399), copy gen wit No. ap de is, or to a ment liquors were copy of the his road in a vious rules officer who seized la’s ear “because nation it was by Seguróla probable which I received suspicious because opportunity to cross-examine In me at timony 267 U. “had information Attorney) ed and elaborated manner against public supra. dant evidence of ure under the you ceived run 39 L. Ed. 1080. because he one Mr. Scribner, 109 the effect great speed. re It The contention “Mr. “Q. This “Q. Ceballos testified “Mr. Gonzalez On this record there “The Court. defendants information that not? A. away source there furnish laid down in Carroll is true that Ceballos had telephoned information, Quarles, contrary to law. police force, which should high speed”; and, going In the 2. Who 1. Now A. R. 790. But the defendant’s court of in which stated, without ruling Mestre. from confidential : was a 311, 4 tried to refused L. following Buick, presumably of such information would be Justice that a Buick automobile admitted principles third object, Yes, safety. car complain because me you great gave you that information? ear ** of confidential justice, and the coming.” by telephone and also S. Ct. Seguróla acted his I take them, by telephone, See, also, Worthington v. bump he is and because he ran (Assistant 45 S. Ct. sir. and fourth right. Vogel have stated Gray’s that he seized occurred: statement as for accused that, Seguróla was on speed.” in evidence (Seguróla) was, ® counsel, he his seizure, within objection, or indictment. exception.” cause for the I v. United without the this learned and On cross-exami- therefore, car mine and say are cross-examina- the source there Ceballos, the Carroll is sustained. confidential, not be stat- he I met him the secrets liquor, the seized Me. direct tes- stating persons not so. 69 L. threw reiterat- he Seguro- tried passing was you 16 F.(Sa) States, driven abun- apart who took away Case, “was seiz- pre- Ed. v. UNITED ex- Schroeder v. United States his no haustive rod v. was in iar knowledge tinent tinguishable tence under testified to the effect that he had no associa communications had, transporting the same doubtful character. objection Bank, cious vict ciple was that there was whether, in ment, cuting own story sustain transportation, was true or tion with exception cuit sustained, Steen, ney sis extent of the cross-examination stant ease. 946, gard of all that court Court of officials, through of errors cross-examination the United States Attor [3] groundless S63 constrained to The privilege 5. But principle illustrated Santiago. in his car was Judge behalf, and was for the at personal learned court held that prosecution; is enunciated that he was mere follows and not for the Fajardo STATES have been the earlier authorities. The Moss, The officer. Under these the circumstances it. The States, ease is opinions Appeals. knew made to this permitted facts, even if otherwise this court the stand relate to the F. of or the sixth and seventh recognizes preliminary eighth assignment Sanborn both eounts —for fifth A. prosecution from Steen had been saved. and had been waived. no sufficient evidence to con But he took the over in made case whom the participation reviewing most of the a learned assignment company ease no App. authority that That was in State v. to show that in his own behalf and to San appeared But, seasonably claimed, falls under the famil cross-examination, assignment Santiago prejudiced. liquor. examination of Ann. therefore, conviction regard had been D. C. them the passenger, v. First 127; Arnstein while there with woman false. plaintiff opinion (C. of the court appearance and F. in the car. On ask him to take a suit for mali- Juan; Eighth Circuit Cas. relates to the that the bank 40) *3 199, 296 F. A.)C. stand in his plainly dis- to the effect Fortin, 106 In that re confidential instituted, -privilege case, and sen Santiago cases National by Cir- claimed prose- analy- illegal might prin Mrs. per But say El he if REPORTER, 2d 16 FEDERAL SERIES (2d) (C. 65; Page C. seizure v. United States and arrest the officer, viz. A.) Friedman v. United whether he stopping cause for (C. A.) C. and that F.(2d) the defendant’s automobile separate possession there no such the arrest —a vital issue transportation (the two as to constitute offenses. ease. The evidence which the witness seizure) gave may, It follows that convictions reversed, not, possession truthful;' may, count must be have transportation, and, not, communication; the second received the affirmed. it, may if he received ob- have been are person worthy under the first count convictions tained from a If credit. reversed, worthy and those under it was not received from a affirmed, case is remanded to credit, it could be that the officer act- *4 proceedings further not Court for ed without the cause in opinion. seizure; inconsistent with this and if the name the communication had been given, had been called a witness Judge (dissenting). BINGHAM, Circuit denied the to record question I desire as to might reasonably be commu- relating one cross- dissent made, nication was not prohibition officer examination of the exist, seizure witness was called as a illegal. Cross-examination is Seizure witness, having shows that The record essential method in a cause the trial having government and called ascertaining testimony given the truth of telephone com receipt of a examination, direct 'that and the denial of seizure and ar just prior to munication right in plainly this ease was prejudicial so com what that rest as to warrant a new trial. was, when asked cross-ex munication com he received the amination from whom munication, was not allowed state person on the name privileged, communication was agree excepted. commu BIDDLE, Warden, fendant v. SHIRLEY. one, which nication Appeals, Eighth Circuit. privileged government, alone, was' and it Vogel withhold. v. disclose or 12, 28 L. 316, 4 S. Ct. 487, 12 1. Criminal after Worthington Scribner, 109 Mass. v. —“Mittimus” judg- vary or contradict conviction cannot My Rep. position is that the Am. ment. whom ernment, having called the officer to final The “mittimus” conviction is have been made is said to communication carrying effect the into state the communi him to vary or contradict judgment on which it was, thereby privilege and based. cation waived its definitions, other Words to cross-examination [Ed. Note.—For see witness Series, Phrases, Mitti- First and and mus.] Second subjeet-matter upon communica person by including name <@=3984 imposed on 2. Criminal —Sentence made; whom was void. dismissed require so to diselose could imposing sentence a count helpful it, and as was much of matter plead, defendant did and which to which inquiry further then shut door voluntarily dismissed, is void. relating communica <@=3lll(I) Defendant, corpus er- Habeas partial that, having required a dis tion; roneously wrong sentenced covering substantially closure, or rather corpus discharged on habeas not be giving privilege, matter, opportunity waived resentenced. to have him pleaded guilty on one entitled to a full defendant became sentenced on different Richardson, & Fost. Regina disclosure. corpus discharge habeas should be with- Scribner, Worthington v. 109 Mass. prejudice have him resen- out proper count, and should be tenced opportunity communication, to the extent that layed do so. important given, was evidence the District Court of Appeal from only government, and in fact material the District of Kansas. upon legality bearing evidence