Wright v. United States
175 F.2d 384
8th Cir.
1949
Check Treatment

*2 WOODROUGH, Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN, Judges. Circuit SANBORN, Judge. Circuit appellants were charged, in- (based Act, on the Mann dictment now Stat. new § C..A. § July U.S.C.A.), Title with having knowingly in inter- Houston, Texas, commerce from woman, Texarkana, Arkansas, a certain (appek purposes. The made, occupied were tion was lants) guilty, pleas of the hotel room re- entered ap- her, tried, By this served for and practiced prostitution sentenced. convicted con- the hotel. peal they challenge legality *3 evi- (1) the contend: that They viction. The assertion the that evidence support the verdict dence to was insufficient that, did not justify an prior inference to court (2) that the admitted jury; of the the end of journey, the the defendants had evidence; the that incompetent (3) an formed intent the woman should en that jury. to the in its court instructions erred gage prostitution Savoy at the Hotel of the defendants The main contentions Texarkana, Arkansas, is untenable. prove (1) to failed Government that the justified finding that -the de inter- transported the woman in they that fendants exactly intended to do what any commerce, (2) they had that state do, did which was to enable this to woman prostitu- engage that she should intent practice prostitution at That the hotel. in Arkansas. tion may be men the believed -to have intended 18, case, 1948, July in the The woman consequences natural and necessary Texas, by Houston, automobile left acts, too require discussion elementary to Arkansas, a Texarkana, where to traveled authority; Myres citation or see v. but her the for at reserved room had been 8 United 329. More F.2d engaged pros- she Hotel. There Savoy over, the defendants’ own a admissions to shows, dis- without The evidence titution. Agent Special Federal the Bureau the prostitute, was a pute, she that Investigation the as that facts were showed defendants; that she the knowledge of the Government contends. Hous- from defendants transported by the that assertion the defendants Texas; she that ton, never the woman interstate constitutes street which the across walked commerce, because she across the walked Ar- Texas and dividing line between the street from Texas Arkansas into and to -the that, point; left at that she kansas after Hotel, ingenious, but, opin Savoy our is. drove, automobile, with the defendants the ion, sought unsound. What the Mann Act traveling bag, Savoy to the Hotel her prevent, minimize, or least to at was the street, ob- Arkansas side of the movement interstate commerce wo there, later room her which she tained a girls purposes. men and immoral In occupied; that the room been reserved had States, the case of Hoke v. United 227 U.S. Houston, Texas, for “Mr. by telegram from 308, page 320, 33 S.Ct. at page Thomas,” telegram be- and Mrs. W. L. L.R.A.,N.S., Ann.Cas. Thomas”; Wright L. that ing signed “W. 1913E, the Court said: “What the act automobile in which woman owned the condemns aid obtained or transported; Moore that he with ed, transportation induced, in or interstate inquired Savoy Hotel when Moore commerce, for purposes men reservation; room that when the about n tioned.” States, In Caminetti v. United Manager that hotel stated Assistant L.Ed. 37 S.Ct. U.S. Moore, no had he reservation for but had 442, L.R.A.1917F, Ann.Cas.1917B, telegram Mr. a and Mrs. W. L. Court said: “It seeks [the act] Houston, a asking Thomas from reser- the movement in inter punish reach it”; said, vation, Wright “That’s girls commerce of women and with state a Manager room Assistant offered them a accomplishment of unlawful to the view beds; with twin that him Moore advised * * * prohibited. au purposes Wright him would be with keep the channels thority Congress (Moore)- Moore’s wife would be with —that commerce free from immoral and him; interstate that “then took he a double-bedded has been sus room”; injurious frequently uses Moore Wright, when to- open tained, longer question.” gether, hotel, Moore and is entered asked States, 287 if boy girl, bell he needed a Gebardi received In answer; L.Ed. 84 A.L.R., affirmative the woman “Transporta- following: 370, appears shortly came to hotel after the reserva- See, or also, with girl Mellor, tion a woman whether United States v. D.C. it, consent, causing aiding Neb., 71 F.Supp. 53, her without States specified Jamerson, furthering Iowa, v. F.Supp. D.C.N.D. punished, when done ways, are the 284-285. acts In the Mellor and Jamer- purpose is immoral son cases the within women involved re-entered meaning law.” automobile after walked across line, regard but we that as of no true legal consequence. it, As see we im- transport physically the woman across the portant question, in the instant is: line and Arkansas. boundary between Texas *4 Did the transport, defendants deliberately got of She out the the Texas automobile or bring aid in transportation or about the in side of the street and not the auto- was of, the woman in interstate commerce? her mobile when the defendants delivered will say It not do to the defendants bag to Savoy arranged Hotel the charged were not with aiding her inter- her the reservation. Neither defendants of transportation, state only but with They stayed Savoy at the Hotel. contend physically transported her from one the journey their It ended Texas. can- state the At other. the time the woman however, gainsaid, be journey that the transported 18, was (July 1948) long of woman the not end but prior thereto, 550, U.S.C., Title 18 § 1940 Savoy Hotel, Arkansas, ended at the Ed., 332, 321, 1152, c. provided: 35 § Stat. that the defendants her had directly “Whoever commits act con- virtually the entire distance Houston. stituting an offense in any defined law of We found have no case which on its States, the aids, abets, counsels, United or facts identical with the instant case. commands, induces, procures or its com- think, however, that, principle, We the mission, principal.” is a As restated does not case differ from that of Mellor 2(a) U.S.C.A., 18 new Title § effective States, Cir., 757, 764, 8 160 F.2d September 1, 1948, provision reads: 848, certiorari 331 67 denied U.S. S.Ct. “Whoever against commits offense 1734, 1735, 91 L.Ed. 1858. In that States, aids, counsels, United abets, com- girls physically involved were not trans- mands, induces, procures commission, its ported boundary across a state by the de- principal.” See, is a Ruthenberg v. United fendants, because, reaching before States, 245 168, U.S. 38 62 S.Ct. boundary, girls left the automobile 414; L.Ed. Hodorowicz, United States v. said, walked across the line. This Court Cir., 7 105 F.2d certiorari denied page 764 of 160 F.2d: 308 U.S. 60 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. “ * * * trip But we will view the in 490, compare, Giles, United States v. entirety its determining whether there 41, 48-49, 300 U.S. has been a violation the Mann Act. We legislative pur- decline thwart must We have no doubt that one who Congress pose enacting by the statute deliberately aids or deliberately brings holding escape that defendants could about the interstate of a penal consequences of wrongdoing their by purposes guilty woman is as process simple stopping the vehicle of the offense transporting though her as line and having girls step at the state physically he had personally carried imaginary across barrier. The trip her across the line.1 question The point O’Neill, from a near Nebraska, was guilt or innocence defendants point Moran, Wyoming. another near case in this was one fact for jury. with purpose If it was taken an illicit out- statute lined guilty. are There merit in the no defendants’ jury against has resolved the issue de- assertions that court erred in its rul ings defendants, fendants.” evidence. after 1 aiding assisting ing, In the Reviser's Notes to § new was deleted as page 2613, unnecessary persons 18 U.S.C. Title it said: because such are persons causing, principals by procur- “Beference to made section 2 of this title.”

388 many cases, approved has been separately interviewed arrest, were’ appellate Bureau this and other federal courts. Federal Special Agent by a trial, substance, re- testified, In to an earnest amounts Investigation, who jury the case if decide quest is contended their admissions. so, conscientiously can thus tes- do save permitted to improperly Agent parties expense the burden and of an- about Mooré Wright said to what tify other Wright, trial another and that before about said what Moore qualifications. different better Such a pre- remarks made some witness also supplemental defendants, charge approved Hew- shpuld which judicial to the States, Cir., United itt v. 8 110 F.2d The court been stricken. have ordered certiorari denied meticulously confining 310 U.S. S.Ct. about careful 1409; Special L.Ed. Boehm v. Agent within testimony States, Cir., 123 F.2d certiorari are two reasons legitimate There bounds. denied S.Ct. L.Ed. required strike why the court complained and Bowen v. United of. The the remarks *5 747, 751-752, prejudicial, denied 328 F.2d certiorari were not first is that not re- that the court was second is quested them. to strike appealed The judgments af- from are firmed. defendants assert

The give re refusing to certain

court erred examined quested instructions. We have WOODROUGH, (dissent- Judge Circuit charge requests of the court. ing). accurate, charge entirely we consider The charge I think the indictment Fortunately, adequate,. eminently fair. appellants named wom- charge, formulating his judge, trial Houston, an in interstate commerce from language and his' use own entitled to Texas, Texarkana, Arkansas, to not was either, party required let counsel not to They transported proven. her from Hous- charge put If mouth. into his word.s ton, Texas, in an gives jury all of the to the accurate and automobile and there unloaded her reach a ver which it needs order to law transporting. terminated their She went charge dict, enough. be that is A should pursuant there Arkansas herself a concise statement of claims inducement, per- enticement parties, jury the issues of fact which'the appellants but she was not suasion of decide, applicable must law. transported by I them. think Mellor v. compilation not be a miscellane should must F.2d requested ous instructions. distinguished. be In that case there was testify. did not transportation of the women in two named court, request, their instructed’ (I rightly) held states and think respect nonprejudicial effect of transportation in- unitary was a testify. While the instruc failure- to transportation and terstate trick of words-requested tion in the exact get letting of the car the women out Compare, defendants, adequate. by the it was the state line did not walk across divest States, 8 Cir., fronti Af transportation continuity its its . F.2d 9 But interstate character. here there was only After the submission of the one’state and I think gave court jury, appar against appel- proven the vicious conduct ently sup difficulty, cogniz- some lants of state federal plemental charge which,- for many years ance.