United States v. Jean Robert Mori

being monthly re- from Frazier’s made direction, he his as checks at tirement of UNITED STATES get away knew, hoped to and that he Plaintiff-Appellee, cashing spree Eglin cheek AFB v. lastly fashion; (4) in similar MORI, Defendant-Appellant. Jean Robert relating to of mind matters state that No. 27908. binding classically matters deci- by jury Appeals, United all circum- States Court sion Fifth Circuit. transaction, surrounding stances de novo reconsideration and June judges.10 appellate re-evaluation point is, minds, to our ex tremely close, but we cannot conclude appellant has in demon succeeded strating error in of the trial the refusal

judge, heard who saw and witness es, judgment acquittal. to direct evidence, light viewed in most favor government, Glasser, supra, able to the though cited,

and other cases close to the go line between sufficient evidence to jury and insufficient evidence for purpose, scope that permissible falls within the jury.

submission to the reasoning This us leads to conclude that affirmance is in order.

From our review of the written record Court, before this the sentence meted essentially out for what was of- However, fense seems severe. applicable within the statute’s limits and therefore was a matter committed to the judge’s trial unfettered discretion. The ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‍appellant right days has a within 120 goes the time our mandate down to move 35, Ainsworth, Judge, Circuit dissented trial court under Rule F.R.Crim. opinion. and filed P., for a reduction his sentence. We are confident such if a motion is given

made it will appropriate be careful consideration that court. Affirmed. government holdings 10. Thе cites such with similar numerous cases cases as Riggs States, including: States, Campbell v. Cir. United 401; F.2d F.2d Greenhill v. demonstrate Cir. the Court Appeals States, 405; retry on review cannot United 298 F.2d 5 Cir. simply States, judgment case or v. substitute its Strauss United guilt 926; as to v. innocence for F.2d Mount that of a jury, 39; being Knapp simply their function F.2d Cir. to find whether, taking the view most Cir. favorable government, there is and Newsom Cir. substantial support jury’s in the evidence 311 F.2d 74. verdict, Glasser v. United

Barry Miami, Fla., Garber, for de- L. fendant-appellant. Rust, Atty.,

Robert Michael W. U. S. Osman, White, J. Asst. William C. U. S. Wilson, Attys., Miami, Fla., Will Asst. Gen., Roger Atty. Rosenberg, A. Beatrice Justice, Pauley, Attys., Dept, Wash- ington, C., plaintiff-appellee. D. THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, Before Judges. AINSWORTH, Circuit

Judge: GOLDBERG, Circuit was indicted

Jean Robert Mori involving viola- narcotics on two counts 1, conspiracy commit an tions : Count against States offense the United 371, the violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § statute; and Count into narcotic United States trial, Following jury U.S.C.A. 174.1 guilty on both defendant Mori was found subsequently He sentenced counts. years $7,500 as to fine to five and a twenty years a fine of Count $20,000 the sentences of as to Count concurrently. From confinement run defend- sentences these convictions and appeals. ant now argues the trial Mori first determining that he could court erred in on both be convicted and sentenced contends counts. In defendant essence constitute that Counts 1 and 3 conspiracy, conspiracies. agree. We charged Mori with defendant Count 3 drug in import a narcotic conspiracy see- narcotic violation of the pled trial, Lambert, prior addition to these Bauer and counts guilty indictment indictment contained four other two counts variously They charging counts and turnеd evidence. Bauer state’s Josette Willy appeal. Lambert, consequently alleged in this Mori’s co- not involved conspirators, with substantive offenses. charged scheme, indictment tiered Count ti on of 21 U.S.C.A. § activity defend- that the unlawful hand, defendant the other promote was the against traveled abroad to ant commit an offense drug in viola- importation of a narcotic general con under the the United States of the substantive 371.3 18 U.S.C.A. § 174.5 which U.S.C.A. § the United alleged conspired to to have Mori was reading indictment the A оf bare foreign traveling in com commit was readily defendant reveals that in essence activity in promote unlawful to merce participation in Round single, conspiracy of 18 U.S.C.A. to violation § indivisible drugs, circuitous, had ing three- narcotic which somewhat out this only, spiracy, proscribes is a the misdemeanor certain substan- Section 174 punishment per- shall such well as tive acts as not exceed the maximum provided in full form those acts. The section provides: June such misdemeanor. c. 701.” 62 Stat. knowingly fraudulently or “Whoevеr brings drug imports any or narcotic 1967, pro- it read in as territory any or into the United States : vided jurisdiction, con- under its control or “(a) in Whoever travels interstate or conceals, law, receives, trary to or foreign any facility commerce or uses sells, any buys, inor facilitates manner commerce, foreign in- in interstate or concealment, transportation, the or sale cluding mail, the to— with intent being any such narcotic after of brought in, knowing imported or the (1) proceeds any of distribute the brought imported been to have or same activity; unlawful or law, contrary to into the United States (2) any commit of crime violence conspires any of or commit such any activity; or to further unlawful of the violation of the laws acts in (3) promote, manage, imprisoned not otherwise shall es- United less than years and, be pro- twenty tablish, carry on, the five or than or facilitate more establishment, motion, management, carrying on, addition, may in be fined or $20,000. activity, any of more than For a second unlawful not attempts subsequent performs (аs or and thereafter or offense determined perform any specified 7237(c)- section of the Internal of the acts 1954), (2), (3), subparagraphs (1), of the offender in Revenue Code shall be $10,000 imprisoned not less than ten be fined not more than shall or forty and, imprisoned years in than than addi- for not more five or more tion, may years, be not more than or fined ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‍both. $20,000. (b) As used in this section ‘unlaw- of on trial for violation Whenever activity’ any (1) ful business means this section the defendant is shown liquor enterprise involving gambling, possession the have оf or to had have has which the excise tax not Federal drug, possession be narcotic such shall prostitution narcotics, paid, or been offenses in sufficient evidence author- deemed of the laws of the violation ex- unless ize conviction plains they in committed or State possession the satisfac- the extortion, (2) of the United or jury.” tion of the bribery, of or in the arson in which committed provides: laws State 3. Section 371 conspire persons or of the United States. “If or more any either to commit Investigations (c) of violations under the United or to defraud involving liquor or nar- this section any agency or thereof the su- be conducted under cotics shall any purpose, any in manner Secretary pervision persons or mote of do and one such Treasury.” object any the con- act to effect par- in This section was amended spiracy, not more each shall fined be present case. ticulars relevant $10,000 imprisoned not more than (Supp.1971). See 18 U.S.C.A. years, or than five both. “If, however, offense, of sec- 5. For the the commis- substantive supra. object see is the of the con- note sion of which illegal objects alleged several and violated two in both counts were Thus, regardless statutes. same.6 parties, duration, involved, and the overt acts number of criminal statutes identity conspiracies charged 6. The Everglades, County Port Florida manifest, Florida, Counts as Broward the State of following excerpts from the indictment in the Southern District of Florida. places reveal: That at the times and herein- Jury charges: The Grand aftеr named the aforementioned defend- ants, in furtherance of said COUNT ONE objects pur- effectuate the July 1. That from on or about poses thereof, wilfully did commit and continuing until the date of the re- following cause to be committed the indictment, turn of the Southern overt acts: District of Florida and elsewhere JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER OVERT ACTS GEISSER, August 15, 1967, nee 1. On about or a/k/a FALLAI; PAULETTE LOUISE JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER LAMBERT, LaSalle, Montreal, WILLY CHARLES from the Hotel Can- ada, telephone JEAN ROBERT MORI made two to calls Jean herein, Plaza, the defendants and diverse other Robert Mori at the Hotel New persons рresently City, to unknown the Grand York New York. Jury, unlawfully, wilfully, 16, 1967, August did 2. and know- On or about ingly, defraud, and with intent com- WILLY CHARLES LAMBERT bine, conspire, confederate, agree Geneva, Switzerland, purchased and passage with each other to commit offenses tickets for aboard the Federico America, Bauer, the United States of C. for himself and Josette Claire Cannes, departing gust France, to wit: from on Au- foreign 20, 1967, Lisbon, Portugal, a. To travel commerce be- via Cannes, Everglades, tween and Port France Port Ever- Florida. glades, Florida, August 17, United 3. States of Amer- On or about ica, County in the Broward WILLY LAMBERT CHARLES Florida, registered Nice, Negresco Southern District of with the at the Hotel promote, manage, establish, intent France. carry promotion, 17, 1967, August on and facilitate the 4. orOn about management, carrying establishment and JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER activity, is, registered on fraudulently Negresco Nice, of an unlawful at the Hotel knowingly and and France. bring August 18, 1967, into the United States of America 5. orOn about a narcotic in violation of the laws AVILLYCHARLES LAMBERT placed telephone of the United States a call to Jean Robert perform Hotel, City, C. § and thereafter to Mori at the Plaza New York attempt perform promote, acts to New York. manage, establish, carry August on and facilitate 6. orOn about promotion, management, establish- JEAN ROBERT MORI placed carrying telephone ment and on of said unlawful a call to Josette Claire activity, IS, Nice, Negresco, all in violation of Title Unit- Bauer at the Hotel Code, ed States France. 1952. combination, 2. That said unlawful August 31, 1967, 7. orOn about spiracy, confederation, agreemеnt JEAN ROBERT MORI accomplished by means, was to be Hotel, registered Clipper at the Yankee following: methods manner Beach, Fort Lauderdale Florida. part August 31, 1967, It was a of the said 8. or about On defendants, the aforesaid Josette CHARLES LAMBERT AYILLY 4,173 grams Claire Bauer nee Geisser Paul- concealed of heroin. a/k/a Willy 31, 1967, August ette Louise Fallai 9. On or about Charles Lambert would travel aboard the ocean vessel Federico JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER Cannes, purchased handbag. large fromC France Everglades, carrying August to Port Florida 10. or about On 14,660 grams with them of heroin and JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER frauduently knowingly Greyhound would im- rented a locker at Terminal, Bus port bring Avenue, into the States Miami 1622 Collins Beach, of America and deliver heroin to Florida. said person persons presently or All Title to the in violation of Jury upon Code, Grand unknown arrival at Section 371. agreements several and hence several offense for Mori which essence agree envisages single it because was indicted was rather several statutes ment: than one.” Braverman single agreement “For when States, 1942, 49, 63 crimes commit one more substantive 87 L.Ed. act, as the an overt is evidenced Therefore, though even [predecessor requires to 18 statute the violation of here envisioned 371], precise nature and U.S.C.A. § including provisions, several substantive conspiracy must be deter- extent of the U.S.C.A. 1952 and U.S.C.A. § agreement reference mined single agreement it was a which con- objects. defines its which embraces and subject to a stituted single agree- object of a Whether the single punishment. generally Youst many ment is commit one 151 F.2d agrеe- crimes, in either case ment which constitutes single agree- punishes. one The further fact that this theoretically agreement ment taken to be violated cannot be August 16, 1967, 2. On or about COUNT THREE beginning July LAMBERT That on or about WILLY CHARLES 1967, Geneva, Switzerland, purchased continuing at and until the date of the passage indictment, tickets for return in aboard the Federico of this Broward County Bauer, for himself in C. and Josette the Southern District of Claire departing Cannes, France, from Florida on Au- gust 20, 1967, Lisbon, Portugal, to via JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER Everglades, Port Florida. GEISSER, nee a/k/a August 17, 1967, 3. On or about FALLAI; PAULETTE LOUISE WILLY CHARLES LAMBERT LAMBERT, WILLY CHARLES JEAN ROBERT MORI registered Nice, Negresco at Hotel France. persons presently and divers other 1967, August 17, 4. On or about Jury unknown, unlawfuly, the Grand did JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER wilfully, knowingly, and with intent registered Negresco Nice, the Hotel at combine, defraud, conspire, confederate, France. agree understanding have a tacit and 18, 1967, August or 5. On about with each other to commit offenses WILLY CHARLES LAMBERT the United States of placed telephone call Robert to Jean wit: Hotel, City, Mori at the Plaza York New bring 1. To into the United New York. territory jurisdic- States and under its August 18, 1967, or 6. On about tion, drug, approxi- a narcotic JEAN ROBERT MORI mately 14,660 grams contrary heroin, telephone call Josette Claire I>laced Bauer at and, to law Nice, Negresco, the Hotel unlawfully, wilfully 2. To and know- France. ingly transpor- conceal and facilitate the 31, 1967, August 7. On about drug, approxi- tation of a narcotic that is JEAN ROBERT MORI 14,660 mately grams heroin, knowing registered Hotel, Clipper at the Yankee imported said narcotic to have been Beach, Fort Lauderdale Florida. territory into the United un- States August 8. or about On jurisdiction, сontrary der its to law. LAMBERT WILLY CHARLES defendants, And that in further- 4,173 grams concealed of heroin. ance of said and to effectu- 31, 1967, August 9. On about objects purposes thereof, ate the did JOSETTE CLAIRE BAUER commit, wilfully cause be com- purchased large handbag. following mitted overt acts: August 10. or about On OVERT ACTS August 15, 1967, 1. On or about CLAIRE JOSETTE BAUER Greyhound Bus JOSETTE CLAIRE rented a locker at BAUER Avenue, LaSalle, Montreal, Terminal, from ada, Miami the Hotel 1622 Collins Can- telephone Beach, made two Florida. calls Jean Plaza, Mori of Title Robert the Hotel New All Code, City, York York. New only as the more conspiracy, statute as well volved in specific “independent” “distinguishable” narcotics statute is similarly conspiracies, punishment irrelevant. case is unlike Our cumulative impermissible American Tobacco Co. under the rationale of Blockburger, Braverman, and American L.Ed. Accordingly, where the Court Tobacco. the trial court imposing held that a violate section erred in on both Act, 1 of the Sherman U.S.C.A. counts. to violate section Nevertheless, the Government Act, 2, gave the Sherman 15 U.S.C.A. § preju contends that defendant was not separate, statutory rise to of- distinct diced since the sentences of confinement specifically pro- fenses. Sections 1 and 2 imposed concurrently. to run This vide that to violate their argument, however, fails to take account provisions separate constitute of the fact imposed that the trial court case, however, acts. In the instant we do cumulative fines on both counts with the independent not have two criminal con- result fine total exceeded the spiracy Rather, statutes. possible maximum fine under either con- specific herein was indicted under a piracy Moreover, statute.7 as we held in general conspiracy and a White, United States v. 5 Cir. general principles statute. Under F.2d where sentences on statutory constructions, the catchall two or impermissible, more counts are provisions of section become sub- error is not cured the existence particular, specific sumed under of concurrent sentences. See also Hol Mоreover, of section 174. land v. United Tobacco, even American the Court Rather, most instances the recognized holding its would not proper remedy is to vacate the sentences apply to a course of conduct which con- and remand to the district court for re- agreement: single, stituted a indivisible sentencing on one count. “We believe also that in accordance Blockburger with the burger case [Block go Defendant would have us 1932, States, 284 further and remand for a new trial. 299, 180, 306], U.S. 52 76 L.Ed. S.Ct. support position of this he cites Milano require 1 2 and of the Sherman Act §§ States, 1961, 551, vich v. United 365 U.S. proof recip which are 728, 81 S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d In Milano 773. rocally distinguishable in from and simple vich the Court held that dependent although of each other resentencing was insufficient to cure objects conspiracies may partial convicting sentencing error of ly overlap.” 788, 328 U.S. at 66 S.Ct. robbery defendant for at 1129. receiving under the Federal Bank Rob generally Edwards, bery Act, See v. United States 18 2113. Since rob U.S.C.A. § 1966, 853, 866-867; bery 2 receipt money Cir. 366 F.2d Masi of stolen 1955, v. offenses, 5 Cir. 223 F.2d inconsistеnt the Milanovich 132, denied, 919, jury cert. 350 U.S. 76 S.Ct. held that in must be 208, 805; 100 v. L.Ed. United States structed that it can return a verdict of Anderson, 1939, 325; guilty offense, 7 Cir. 101 F.2d on either but not on both. S.D.N.Y.1969, DeSapio, ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‍However, White, v. in United States v. F.Supp. 436, 440-442; 299 United States we are held that where the counts Co., v. inconsistent, overlapping, American Honda Motor N.D.Cal. not but instead 1967, F.Supp. 979, proper remedy simple 271 982-987. resen Since is tencing. we find that defendant Mori was in- That is the situation in the 371, provides 18 U.S.C.A. § the narcotic spiracy statute, provides $20,000. for a maximum a maximum fine of $10,000, 174, fine while 21 U.S.C.A. 246 3, charging Governmеnt, 1 counsel the trial

instant case. Counts court, evidentiary simply separate conspiracies, cumula are without a further hearing granted overlapping. are mo- The counts the Government’s tive and tion to correct Defendant inconsistent. United States the record. Cf. Ass’n, objects timing Maryland Bev. Licensed to the of the Government’s State 1957, 420; procedure employed v. motion and 240 F.2d Williams Cir. 1956, objections dispute. F.2d resolve the These 5 Cir. 215, 1024, denied, 77 S.Ct. without merit. cert. 589, Thus, punish 1 L.Ed.2d while 10(e) Under Rule is clear impermissible, ment on is both counts may the district consider a court required. Braver- new trial is not See motion to correct the record even after supra. man v. United there We appeal has been taken. the motion Once fore sentences of fine and vacated the made, is the differences between the imprisonment and remand the case to parties “shall submitted be resentencing court on one district by” settled the district court. Counsel States, supra; count. See Masi v. United in the instant case had notice of the mo Zerbst, Fаrnsworth v. Cir. F. argu opportunity present tion and 2d 255. ment before the district court. There argues In addition that a defendant complete necessity was here no for a evi preju- required new trial because of dentiary hearing. Federal Rule of See judge by dicial comments made the trial Appellate 10(c); Moore, Procedure 9 J. during the course of the trial. [3], |f Federal Practice 210.08 at 1653. record reveals that the court instructed judge trial ordered record cor if he testified he pursuant rected his recollection would have to submit to cross-examina- issue, determination, events at and that the Government. Mori contends showing absent of intentional falsifica comment, shown the record plain unreasonableness, tion or is con place presence to have taken in the clusive. Buick v. United jury, impermissible an constituted 1; 913-914 n. Gunther v. comment on his failure take the stand Co., E. I. duPont deNemours & Cir. testify. California, Griffin 710; Holton, 255 F.2d Belt v. U.S. 579; U.S.App.D.C. 197 F.2d L.Ed.2d 106. White, 1940, App.D.C. Clawans v. filing denied, Subsequent 112 F.2d cert. of defendant’s 412; Moore, appeal, peti- brief оn L.Ed. the S.Ct. 9 J. Government [1], tioned the trial court Rule 210.08 at 1640 Since de under Federal ¶ Appellate 10(e) effectively challenged fendant has not Procedure to correct by challenged the record to the conclusions trial reflect that the reached the court, place presence comment took we must the show outside the read record to jury. hearing arguments place of the that the took After trial court’s comment by Having by presence jury. outside the of the counsel 10(e) provides: 8. Rule court either before or after the record “(e) appeals, Correction or the Modification of is transmitted to the court of any appeals, proper Record. If difference arises as the court of on truly suggestion initiative, may to whether the record or of discloses its own court, _what occurred in the direct that district the omission or misstate- corrected, necessary the difference shall be submitted to ment be if by supplemental and settled the that court and rec- that a recоrd be certified questions ord made to conform to the truth. If All other transmitted. anything party material to either is toas the form and content of the rec- by presented from omitted the record error or ord shall be to the court of therein, appeals.” accident or is misstated the parties by stipulation, or the district argument than so, of more one could be done we find defendant’s imposed. plainly merit. error without reversible case, The instant as the Government conviction of fine and The sentences аptly points out, differs from Braver- case is remanded are vacated and the in man that the Mori imposition count. conduct on of sentence one was indicted and convicted constituted a Vacated and remanded. separate and distinct two conspiracy provisions the United Judge, (dis- AINSWORTH, Circuit In American Tobacco Code. senting) : distinguished Braverman Supreme Court I from the decision to remand ground. dissent on the same The defendants for re- case the District Court charged American Tobacco were judg- sentencing. I would affirm the (among things) other respects. ment and sentence in all punishable conspiracy separate under Anti-Trust of the Sherman Appellant Mori indicted and con- argued Act. The their defendants conspiracy. victed on two counts conspiracy conviction counts both charged Count 1 under a jeopardy double constituted general U.S.C. § multiple imposition of unwarranted to violate 18 U.S.C. § punishment, relying on Braverman. charged Act; count 3 a con- Travel claim, Supreme rejectеd Court under 21 U.S.C. § stating (328 U.S. at S.Ct. Drugs Import Export Narcotic Act. 1128-1129): majority, relying on Braverman 317 U.S. 63 S.Ct. single conspiracy In contrast (1942), the in- 87 L.Ed. 23 holds that separate in that case in described charged single agreement dictment counts, all ** constituting for which *, have we only single punishment could be offenses, separate statutory one here imposed. my view, In American Tobacco in restraint of trade that Co. v. United 328 U.S. may stop monopoly, short of (1946), 90 L.Ed. a more monopolize other a recent case which the may not be content with restraint Braverman, distinguished and limited monopoly. short made One is directly authority point. more On the 1 and the other § § American Tobacco and Gore Act. Sherman 78 S.Ct. Tobacco, case, as in American In this (1958), L.Ed.2d I would hold separate conspiracy provisions Mori was of two indicted and convicted they involved, different statutes proper offenses for which was require proof. different Count 1 of impose punishment. cumulative charges conspiracy under indictment foreign Braverman, travel com- the defendаnts U.S.C. 371 to purposes the merce for unlawful in violation indicted on seven counts general charging statute, of travel element each 18 The U.S.C. count; proof unique this a different to this of to violate 3, provision of Internal element is immaterial to count which ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‍moonshining. charges relating under 21 Revenue Code U.S.C. § jury counts, import and conceal narcotics. The convicted on all 174 Compare Judge imposed Dunkel v. Samuel consecutive sentences. United 894, Co., Cir., 1950, in Supreme 2 reversed and re- & 184 Court resentencing holding which the Circuit sustained manded the case for Second single single imposition agreement of of two sentences that a in violation Government, agreement to defraud statute general conspiracy single one under the which no stituted a offense for 248 machinery detection, pros- conspiracy- specific the criminal under a the other — tighter and “overlapping” ecution and requiring but — tighter” on illicit traffic in narcotics. proof. identical Sec- 357 at at 1283. 78 S.Ct. U.S. agreement question an whether and 21 174 1952 U.S.C. § separate con federal two which violates times, enacted at different “to the end two constitutes statutes dealing with, strictly more and more by refer resolved offenses is one to be seeking to throttle more and more Congressional intent. See ence to legal devices,” different the international States, 365 U.S. v. United Milanovich States, See Gore v. United trade. 729-730, 551, 554, L.Ed. 5 81 S.Ct. (1961); at 1284. 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. v. United 2d Callanan 773 nothing I find Congress from which to infer that 587, 596-597, States, S.Ct. 364 U.S. conspiracy to intended that (1961); 321, 326-327, 5 L.Ed.2d to travel narcotics States, 358 U.S. Heflin v. United carry- country purpоse of to this ing for the 453-454, 419-420, L.Ed. 79 S.Ct. illegal enterprise an business (1958); 2d Gore v. involving treated as narcotics should be 386, 388-392, S.Ct. 357 U.S. hold that crime. Thus I would (1958); 1282-1284, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 1 and the indictment under counts 3 of v. Prince U.S. appellant Mori was convicted state 405-407, 325-329, 1 L.Ed. offenses, and would distinct federal in Note, Developments (1957); 2d 370 judgment affirm the and sentence of Conspiracy, Harv.

the Law: Criminal District Court. (1966).1 L.Rev. 964-66 enacting Congress’s purpose Part of in was to State assist U.S.C. §

governments combating in interstate racketeering operations violative of State Nardello, v.

law. United States See 534, 538, 21 L.Ed. 89 S.Ct. (1969) ; H.R.Rep. 2d 87th No. ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‍UNITED STATES Cong., (1961), 1st in 1961 U.S. Sess. Appellee,- Cong. p. 2664. Code & Admin.News at Congress However, scope broadened the PRICE, Appellant. Clifford David encompass of Section 1952 to foreign travel No. 489-70. purpose commerce for the carrying on violative federal activities Appeals, States Court Only law. certain federal of classes of Tenth Circuit. fenses, among them, narcotics offenses June are reached under 1952. In this Section viewed, respect, 1952 should be as the read the statutes States, su involved in Gоre United

pra, evidencing on the as determination Congress part of “to turn the screw majority 1. The case relies on a has all but abandoned same evidence invoking test, Congressional sentence from American Tobáceo the test of favor of especially the old “same evidence” test as intent. stated Gore v. United Blockburger text, in which the ma- cited (1932). jority, vigorous L.Ed. 306 over a dissent Mr. Jus- Note, Brennan, Yale L.Rev. 921-24 tice reaches a result which the (1958) ; Comment, Statutory Imple permit, same evidence test would Jeopardy Clauses, reinterprets Blockburger mentation of a case Double itself as (1956). Congressional Yale intent. L.Rev. 347-49 which turned more recent decisions the

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Jean Robert Mori

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 4, 1971

Citation: 444 F.2d 240

Docket Number: 27908

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.