276 F. 12 | 7th Cir. | 1921
Writs of error to reverse judgments against Baldy Venlinio (No. 2912) and Charles Manicini (No. 2913), tried together by agreement under separate, but identical, indictments charging' perjury.
The indictments charge with sufficient certainty and clearness the offense of perjury and of what it consisted, and apprised the accused of the proof he must be prepared to make. There is no possibility that the judgments here complained of cannot be successfully pleaded in bar of any further prosecution for the same offense. The record indicates that the defendants were not, nor was either of them, surprised in any way.
“Mr. Kareh: I object to that, your honor; that Is not the proper way to prove the perjured testimony, because that may contain a lot of matters which are not relevant to the issue.”
“If counsel will point out the relevant matters, they will be considered, and those that are irrelevant will be overruled.”
Subsequently, when the testimony was again offered, no objection whatever was made, defendants’ counsel merely observing, “I haven’t had time to examine them” (Exhibit 1, Manicini’s testimony in the Muskino case, and Exhibit 2, Venlinio’s testimony in the same case). Thereupon there was read to the jury the transcript of the testimony of Manicini, which the reporter had already testified he had heard, reduced to writing, and correctly transcribed, and no further objection was made, excepting that counsel for defendants suggested with reference to a certain question and answer, “That part of it is irrelevant.” The evidence offered and admitted was the best evidence by which such facts could be proven. Brown v. Luehrs, 79 Ill. 575; Luetgert v. Volker, 153 Ill. 385, 388, 39 N. E. 113. When Venlinio’s testimony was read, no further objection was made.
“The government is required by the law to produce such evidence as will satisfy your mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment.”
The court told the jury:
“The defendants under the law are presumed to be innocent, and that presumption continues until such times as the jury believes from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.”
“The only question that you do determine by your verdict is the guilt or innocence of these defendants of the crime with which they are charged, and that is of knowingly and willfully swearing to a thing which they do not believe, or which wasn’t so.”
There was no substantial error in the instructions.
The judgments are and each of them is affirmed.