counts
trials
ry
District
Anti-Narcotic Act
in error.
Kansas
third counts
ants,
three
guilty on
guilty on
counts,
Atty.,
versed
Kansas
they
BURGH,
victed
souri;
James
Act
6287q).
and a severance
ed States
on all
onment
onment
randum was
referred
000
while
titled
Act
error,
allow
25. Criminal
ernment’s witness
Anti-Narcotic Act
6287q).
dum used
error,
entitled to
ernment’s witness in
low
error, hereafter referred
TRIEBER,
Erank
Before STONE
Upon a
William
Harry
In Error to the District Court
In
Rothman,
Kansas
Witnesses
United States.
on
(Comp.
bring
accused’s
years’ imprisonment
to
three
testifying,
of Kansas
accused’s counsel
prosecution for
prosecution
M.
Merrill E.
City,
City, Mo., on
imposed
held not
Judge.
both
inspect
on each of
to
violating
Lamento
part.
the second count.
D. Rader and
the first and
guilty,
Rader, W. H.
charged
L.
error.
imprisonment
counts,
St. §§
P.
trial,
to be concurrent with the
inspect memorandum used
by government’s
City,
indictment,
by government’s
sentenced
law
Mo.
of these defendants were
Thomas,
prejudicial,
and Steno
<@=3256
the
District
count,
material.
such
counsel for
prejudicial.
<@=311701/2(1)
City,
§§
the defendant
Otis,
6287g-6287q),
(Roscoe
the defendant
the
Mo.
for
Western
with
Judges,
Affirmed in
entered a
referred
6287g-62S7q),
the first
granted
(Comp. St.
memorandum.
and VAN VALKEN
(Comp. St. §§
—Accused’s
prosecution for
Anti-Narcotie
the second and third
to
Mo.,
and another were
violating
violating
Judge.
on
Asst.
Judge.
Paul
third
with violations of
(Thomas R.
Ulif J.
to
brief),
inspect memorandum
three
Lamento,
on the second and
inspect memoran-
on
Motions
District of
accused
to memorandum
Patterson,
count. The de- dictment
U.
witness,
H.
counts and not
witness,
plea
—Refusal
as the
first count to
years’
Rothman.
a fine
,
part,
Conwell,
Taylor guilty dealer,
Harris,
in which
Anti-Narcotic
use of
Anti-Narcotic
Piatt,
Harris was
TRIEBER,
§§
brief),
refusal
Atty., of
plaintiffs
plaintiffs
the
Act, and
violating
for new of
held en-
defend-
Nichols
impris-
impris-
Marks,
denied,
6287g-
by gov-
though
guilty,
though
memo-
6287g-
19 F.(Sa)
all of
Unit- on
to
U. S.
Hen-
three
Mis-
both
con-
gov-
*2
v. UNITED STATES
$1,-
re-
al-
to
fendants are
would
them. The
they
small
perfect
are:
tention
trial.
tion
morphine without
the
and 1921.
create
the court on them. The
as the motions were
oral
being
the
[2,
action
does the bill of
ruled, although
That this count
overruled
law
third count
fendants,
the defendants
rers,
the first count.
fendants,
the
es of
unlawfully possessed
imprisonment, and
count to be
count
ounces of
ers.
and its
fendant Nichols was
[1]
sis
errors.
3]
a form issued
original
To the
The
internal revenue collector
three distinct
refer
bills of
Commissioner
indictment,
to
special
argument.
Motions
morphine,
The second count
overruled
quantity
no doubt
register as
fact,
derivatives, being persons required
the record.
first count of the indictment
presume
grounds
or the amendments to that
called
specific
is not
how
Whether
presumption
imprisonment
them.
morphine
This
that it
stamped
(2)
charges possession
particulars,
concurrent
tax as
counsel for the
this,
to be
be so
many
court
on
called to this
exceptions
necessary
the
with
fails to
That it is
is
Had defendants’
which were in effect demur
the record fails to show
quash
count,
enough
the
have been
relied on
violations
imprisonment on
either
The
such
having registered
is not
having registered
established
set
they
of Internal Revenue. The
ordinarily insufficient, but,
regarded,
blank
same not
narcotic
such
sales were
meet.
package.
to one E.
filed,
special
fine of
sentenced
on these
with
being
for
forth
charges being felonies,
each
dealers
were dealers
with
thát
show whether the de-
in their
were
specific
for three
charges
sale
to set out
for
show
violation
the court no doubt
duplicitous,
advise
in the assignment
$1,000
dealers in
granted
being
that
mention of their
drugs
for
filed
seven
evidently
law.
omission, they
the demurrers
motions.
H.
of seven
made to con-
the counts of
possessor
enough.
briefs
did
proof
also
that the
counsel’s
years
the office
imposed
three
act
Staley,
them
sold seven
on the
by
in or from
such deal-
in the in
ounces
and with-
does not
(3)
overrule
leave to
motions
district,
of 1919
charges
the act
charg-
or the
at the
years’
ounc-
ques
over
third
what
That
of a
Nor
any
did
(1)
de
at
by
by
*3
on
of
REPORTER,
FEDERAL
2d
SERIES
if the defendant
registered
ernment
That of the defendant Nichols
count should
den
denied. There
thereof
for directed
United
properly
the
ed or
able the defendants
been established
Talmadge
Aside from
discretion of the trial
ics from
who is
trial,
ed States
they
[8,9]
Ct.
erly denied,
supplied
sale
stitute
December
third count
States,
offense,
taz,
it
fers
undercover men.
half of the defendant
verdict of
1919 and 1921
cella Smith v. United
without
more than
promiscuously,
es
act
sell
cotics.
This
[10,11]
(2d)
Comp.
(2d)
[6,7]
[4,5]
is
discretion.
possession by
violations
guilty
without written
to
duplicitous,
unnecessary
is a
is
723
As
the defendant
2. Neither
one a dealer.
States,
292
a violation of
and is
Nor
70 L. Ed.
having registered
an
to those authorized to
violation
Motions
denied. Each of
v.
(opinion
(C.
to
fact that
unaware that
v. United
on
discretion. Hindman v.
one offense. The first count
F.
only charges
unstamped
registered,
Noveck,
this,
as
as well
a
the demurrer
is this
request by
have been
verdict of
that count.
679
54
as
guilty
defendant to
is no
special
the
required
and were
has in his
defendants,
to
App.
such a
fully
the first nor
Possession
duplicitous.
filed
(C.
charge
reversed,
as
pass
7).
to
neither of
the tax as before
evidence that
count
271
they
Nichols,
on
States
section 1
applied
bills of
States
It is sufficient
order
section 8 of the Act of
the
(section 6287n,
tax.' The sales
C.
prepare
D. C.
and had
as
package,
special
Taylor
Feb.
government,
that count
a
sustained,
motion is within
U. S.
on
There
A.
ready
purchase
to the second
is that he made the
amendatory
duplicitous.
The
the counts
and
prove
prove
on
it,
6);
28,1927);
unless
(C. A.)
(C.
necessary
hy
who are
particulars
as he was
were officers or
tax. The
201, 203,
the order form
so
for a directed
request
sold
purchase
their
6287g).
was
paid
or
and
C.
C.
Arnsheim
purchase,
far
the
on the
was
as
clearly
of narcot
willing
A.)
negative,
no
properly
if,
narcotics the Law of Evidence,
register
a
the bur
no
defense.
the tax.
as it re
original
F.
charges
charges
he had detail
United
stated.
acts
dealer,
counts
*4
charg age
to en
on
denial
count,
U. S.
at the
prop
abuse
17 F.
Unit
46 S.
other
Mar
were
4 F.
946; clearly
gov
nar
evi-
The
the
the v. United
be
of F.
v.
indictment were
preme
ments
jections.
jections
ant
in the
most
cient to
eration
with them.
it
objections
This
practice.
peated
sary
ruled
trial
the
find that
signments
is
to other
jections.
questions
considered as
record show
part
government.
selling,
Rossi
10
by
utory
dence
States,
Sing,
[14]
Notes
[18] his direct thereafter. The authorities ordinary 8); McHenry special requests cross-examination must numerous, 119,276 witness The Section that, 19 F. —52 in an concerning subject brought he takes charge as United the (2d) dose examination. be asked as ounce, (Raffel F. Ct. them at the proper cross-examination of a but questions States, testified agents out on the same the his v. States, and similar testified to these morphine, United v. United stand, he becomes 34 A. L. R. qualifications defendants, need defendants acted for court was law, to his Penal ask his time 250 F. L. Ed. 1054), and rule of While the others, err in be confined F. 148 only his direct exam States, and included all these examination in the answers were States, knowledge Code questions, permitting, cite a which were a clear and immediate utes law as is immate number of this questions. (C. matters had this been known defend general Taylor, 271 U. (C. Good to the phar point C. A. duced App. few. wit any al C. number of establish ment lor on nial the ion stamped. is addressed to the the statement fendants. The narcotics sold and witness lor on the third count. The evidence the cretion ample seven ounces of containers, first dict of
[23]
[21]
[22] Smith. them were The there jury might witness thereof The The motion for a new trial is based on This also against in evidence, den Kansas the first motion. judgment against in the third count. Smith evidence, granting This is sufficient to affirm as Assuming and that Smith was defendants had charged that, no in packages, applies the trial did not in appellate count morphine, and shown not to have been case large quantities by defendant Nichols on the a few of a motion for the disregarded they City. discretion of and shown at this to be in the third to the defendant Smith’s testify judge. reversed; days a clear abuse of dis the defendant were in count. court review a de discretion in which were intro as It is warrant charged operating true, testimony, claimed In our the count. The unstamped purchased new trial the trial the the evidence both de shows there is the of the judg- deny opin facts trial, trial, that, Tay- Tay ver an a REPORTER, 2d SERIES FEDERAL Yes. He Taylor against sation with at that-time? judgment affirmed; count the sale talking him on told us— I with count the defendant second had talked ounces, ten and he said he against affirmed; judgments both de- and the regards partner his to this. on the third count are affirmed. fendants is that? “Mr. Erknk Rader: How Judge. with STONE, I concur his (continuing): had talked to “A. He expressions in the results reached and with partner regard 10 ounces and said this Judge TRIEBER; however, opinion of Mr. get him and he told he could it for also upon. that, I to touch which desire than Staley get are two matters him more that he could rulings safety get of these is that advise him to and he would trial, except as trial court on motions for new five keep bank and posit box down evidence, upon newly being shipped discovered in to him from ounces that was founded not subject courts. that; review United States have it all New York in he would then challenge [24,25] The second relates to the have to fool with time, and would not respecting bootleggers; the use of a memorandum an amount for- take out testifying. while, Ybarra while she was not have to fool witness a short and he would objected, they because bootleggers. Counsel for accused with the memoran- permitted inspect “Q. you were not recall other conversation Do right. I am place date, I had such Ybarra ? A. dum. think Miss that took instance, preju- equally that, in this 21st Yes; certain I am a confused between the bit inspection. denial of dice resulted and 22d. July certainly 23d. committed on can talk These offenses were “Mr. Jas. Rader: She place your please. date referred All before that than honor louder speak development of situation in so far more distinct- to the “The Court: Please securing you ly; you may refer to memorandum confidence the accused. Miss Ybarra with be- acquaintance of have.