“wаs no bringing it to the the lessee bore tho the methods lief to all ties at the value of and all of the ered gested The conclusion is that on sought. to him. It was not made persons similarly situated. were the oil lacking expense which was adopted by the- expenses of appellants entitled to the decree is affirmed. loss of surface, lessee’s uniformity or fairness required reference drilling “dry while interеst, in that no finding taxing GROVE ground sug- appear the lessor authori- oil and at holes” deliv- 3F.Í2<11 part re- *1 UNITED Morton and defendant (Curran Robert F. Criminal In Error ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‍Baltimore, Baltimore; Iloppy brief), STATES W. W. States P. Harry & Grove. prosecution by Fisher, Leach, of to the District Court Leach, Jr., of Md. Woodcock, for the District of Morris A. brings plaintiff C. Judgment Asst. U. S. error. Affirmed. Baltimore, Md., on in error. Soper, Judge. the United States otherwise known Baltimore, Md. Atty., Atty., and conviction, Marylаnd, of tho both ROSE, WADDILL, WOODS, Before and Judges.

Circuit * jnry. lation of fendant question and solicited to enter into 4. ed that not tion nesses went forward with the the did not entitle him to an 3. down spiracy, and grand jury unknown, fronted with tutional constituted, mistrial for both the witnesses who- testify that defendant was consenting 2. timony previously given by them, as taken after which stenographer. 1. *Certiorari Waddill, question oodefendants. entitled waive lawful. After continuanсe remaining ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‍(Circuit Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal law Where Where A defendant During acquittal remaining agents, by stenographer. against him. GROVE UNITED STATES. mistrial, parties Circuit Court to the admission as evidence an indictment for persons approached denied law it was others were and at entrapment their law Prohibition of all 11 and law acquittal entrapment. January declared. to be confronted with witnesses. trial a to be cоnfronted of trial H<M, had testified those evidencealso ©=37—Facts tho the trial was ©=877—Defendant ©=662(l) 45 Ct. ©=662(8) caused former No. 2281. Judge, dissenting. read to except Appeals, waive indicted, a wore 17, 1925.) because substituted By deprived for submission to the Act, arrested, and new transaction, instance legally acquittal. — consent —Defendant his parties transaction in vio- Jury became implicated others, conspiracy informed Fourth Circuit. 69 L. Ed. —. illness of held jury against him continued conducted, those indicted accepted there others to the acquittal to the con- recalled, to juror. jury by the ©=32(3)— before juror held his of counsel ill until de- held not the wit- prohibi- to. * be con- of tes- consti- legally- charg- before raise true, morning and a pended that trial of the caso tho court met as usual at 10 o’clock in the morning, pany, tional that the defendant did not conduct of the date, warehouse of the Grove convicted. Grove November certificate port acquitted, pany, mobile truck. Overt acts were 24th and bert Becker, secretary and treasurer of the ware- warehouse treasurer, house act the National Prohibition Act. The overt house bur attorney, cases of Grove, and 000 cases of charges conspiracy by WOODS, Tho defendants Routzahn requests charged against prior $10,000, Routzahn, White, fraudulent and No. company, Much stress is on because acquit him, Grove whisky of March 1,000 possess 1,000 and Louis showing went to Frederick, No. 7th, and the defendant trial. Tho trial other proceeded regularly and other Circuit November the final whisky. the last charge. Albert of the sickness permit presented eases of $25,000 and loаded it into an auto- obtained a manner not authorized paying persons unknown, Outerbridge-Horsey Outerbridge-Horsey 2Gth. judge and in the refusal of oth- the serial numbers of and means of a false Judge. laid payment, Mann, secretary Md., persons White, refusing John payment receiving cases of two assigns vicinity H. Walter on November stated to the On that day, when whisky, possession on the contention have began and White werе distillery Routzahn, Routzahns, The indictment and unknown was of one stored on the same error in the of bonded Harry whisky to he sus $5,000 until on March direct to A. M. Harry C. constitu to trans- Ganster, charged of 250 ware- Com- Com- Wil- 9th, Al- 1,- on on *2 REPORTER, 2d SERIES 3 FEDERAL 966 n were 12 gave present quent on the illness of cumstances were was him, after testified the Becker was then recalled to the cluded, by recalled to the the not torney then read the and sworn. He he hаd jury morning This case. statement to sick that testified be recalled to the would court asked if mony already given by ties that the witness jury, tion; The court stated to the sickness was days jury that The new There can be no Thereupon The new legal On March was then they stenographer who took his testimony return ease, agreed that the present juryman, he had testified Louis adjourned. first jury given opposed by counsel for defendants. witness was then excused. of the to consist the who was not able was true. Witnesses were then ex- counsel that jury have made a juryjnen were desired for further the that he of the testimony, sworn discharge saved be asked whether or testimony was desire was true. Witness was Mann be the witnesses who the prosecuting read 10 trial should be read if counsel desired to stenographer; jurors jurymen 27th, H. Walter time and thаt the sworn juror, o’clock, to excused presented Breebaek, of the by having brief and an additional stand, sworn, and testified testified jury. had been sworn before unfortunate, Becker be Ganster, excused,-which was then of counsel for both sides. in view the to read it defendants stated of the first who had ground jury taken to recall the counsel Mr. statement, agreed by and Mr. recalled to the the ease juror Bаyne. provided remaining 11 of the to come them was until stenographer testimony attorney suggested that the jury that be Ganster, Jr., to the deféndant. stand and Mann, before which testimony that Bayne the during sworn, prosecuting at- re-examined, discharged already heard but that time the for both testimony did not the testi- stenographer called, there before 11 of had either saying to the Bayne, the counsel. to the new stand, and to override and, suggestion time court and Beck- make 11 of the Aaron N. true; and testimony witnesses, continued stood. juryman; following examina- he then excused, the two the cir- the already jury. he had it. sworn; conse- sworn When party stand after their true. trial. par- new was if not even might Diaz United tion. On that defendant fronted reason, they considered it tion ments not them, and saying that sons witness was themselves, of a witness ty to reеross-examine technical confronted sion ror, presence and the defendants that rors 1002, 38 L. v. United challenge 136, 36 cases: 396, 14 S. Ct. to -the method of against has that He not the States, dividual decisions States, 154 U. S. accepted and Nor reading repeat only the law jury government was consent, but on the They against them, not recently the decision, at one time might to be well We subject, re-examination admission substantial ' But, with the witnesses. them Pointer v. United only preferring them. them, repeated juror, presentation under substantially, sense, were the defendants the witnesses think States, might have that consent. Ed. 936. would make Ed. of their evidence separately the even did not confronted substitute acceptance of 12 and have made no for his the contrary, after educe held agreed presented, or to thе may waive the well have testimony defendants no thought that the ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‍Whatever oath. presence the witnesses if as evidence of well 146 Supreme reading reason can be Supreme that the presentation, who authority after defendant 38 L. require defendants legal. additional formal oral examina to the defendant each of ready U. S. and reeross-examina- objection them resworn, а written statement St. Clair The court Tierney eannot, by request made out of court had had to their full had manner States, the but Ed. accordance In witnesses greater deprived of in the strictest Court Court testify We full to re-examine person. thought, very already heard can before consideration, them. consenting to had panel as by agreeing qualified affirmatively the new defendants’ counsel jury. opрortuni- stated, for advantage this discussion 151 U. S. the state 13 testimony adhere testimony good witnesses evidence, in which in three says, in objected in their impres- any found, should taken, judge Lewis Thus, court They Each also, held con- rea- for ju- for the ju- Ct. in-. * the Central Automobile part as means of and Grove testified that Winkel lent him the name tioned one prove But andria, charge White, ment, persons would have been man 44; People Guidici, Routzahn, right secured in evidence People Murray, ness 452; right waived Mo. baum v. from the Mont. witness bodied continuance in or without deposition of sueh Cas. several states United States. Iowa, ence of the accused, the cock v. State State, State, 61 Wis. “That this Grove, wliisky Barney the indictment also 1913C, is v. 133; or a statement Had the indictment State and there Ct. of the false Va. Wilbur Routzahn testified that in an unknоwn were State, 14 commit the Lewis, 31 adjudged eases name. State, 33 Ala. implication 648; State Ind. since it acquittal was to be loaded was licensed in some money John 1138): prosecution Wightman ©r to Winkel lent him this v. is so witness, State King Yirginia license, getting whisky. conspiracy by the Constitutions agreement made to avoid where, by the consent testify, testimony 378; Mortensen, 26 281; One Thus equivalent 52 Mich. Tex. Routzahn, dispense paid requires Bros. Thе other truck prior of the three last-named Wash. a witness jurisdiction, L. (56 Ed. crime State v. parties evidence State 100 N. v. necessary v. Constitution if is Company App. the trucks for the certificates relating charges 354; Williams v. to persons not men of proceeding, permitted is held Fooks, 65 People, 67 Barb. have referred. present, 288.” of what such more to an v. with the Grove, an absent v. GROVE v. 392; Rosen Y. limited Winkel was and Mann tо enter into the conspiracy. Wagner, taken from taken Vanella, 88; conspiracy. tending to Poison, 29 that other to 500, Ann. conclusion Butler v. Grove in the than one of Alex in which acquittal Wilbur license, ed; as em to of the of Albert or the agree of the Iowa, Han with pres read 312; wit like never told the trapment. the was 3?. UNITED STATES (2d) Mann a scheme to defraud the scheme ever officers authorized or tion at Grove’s formation, known the whole matter to the officers of the law. The evidence shows cers that ster and Mann to agent. ky, indictment tificates and thus tion for the part to lawful to show that these might makes and, defendant Grove sons— die agents one Will lor. rowed der. The ant Grove. supported The ^[4] accept it, denial testified that Grove, hand, get but the evidence buying informed Grove of his on the Ganster The defendant Grove testified Winkel, persons made no difference jury, then, of the have fold Cleveland Grove money proposed transaction, But The or Grove had the circumstances anybody of the verdict, Will testimony and evidence some whisky Ganster and only, explanation other, testimony, Eddie so that Grove known request implicated informed the distillery, and persons conspiracy charged, of, tо make the Cleveland officers did request, the evidence to whieh we Grove, implicated they liquor. get were never arranged named in the had before was Grove, and one finding for sale. proposition by but Grove, possession go by does furnished no founda on the wont into the transac proposed not mentioned encouraged, they Kidweyler and that of these circumstances forward with the None admitted that he Grove, reject Mann, *3 contemplated un- might their connection. one or more to encourage prohibition as set from and to payment from subject of the defend- were not. agents Upon show that the testimony them, buy conspirators, of these out, of the whis government the remain- prohibition Bang, Ed- indictment they who were —testified be detect whom the to was him Kidwey- or were the cer pretend Ganster that he this in tending he on the of accept made Gan per- well offi en of of It Grove’s and on intimate case, therefore, presented question brother-in-law entrapment, him. Cleveland a broth Judge terms with the District cor part charged lent him of the rectly so We have re whisky. money pay for the Cleveland cently restated the familiar rule on the sub protect the defendant from also, ject, Grove Newman v. United Jug robbery, patrolled the road at 128: money part paid. decoys may where “It well settled that Bridge, payment made, entrap present op- Cleve and to ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‍criminals, When the last used to King intending willing secreted them portunity land to one Grove decoys nearby permis- are not in the sehoolhouse commit crime. But selves purpose. The defendant also bor- same sible to ensnare the innocent and law-abid- REPORTER, 2d SERIES FEDERAL in criminal dissimilar When unlike and of crime. ing commission into the may, litigant former, parties cases. In the not with originates, design the criminal mat- respect private to their and eivil the mind accused, is conceived many give things as between ters, consent to accused officers, and the government en- But in criminal cases an themselves. representation, by persuasion, deceitful tirely exists,, and what different condition commission into the lured inducement respect in this done as well with estopped government act, impaneling the choice prosecution there- policy from sound reading to the introduction of for.” stenographer’s notes of the former trickery and deceit brazen *4 by not law, warranted because it de- the defendant Mann defrаuded Ganster and nied, hand, on the one his to the accused commented "was $25,000 least of at Gro.ve on legitimate right language opportunity of of chal- Judge in by District the lenge jury, in the the the selection of instructing in the strong condemnation, trial, new and to new cau- the accused and the great testimony with to receive their especially jury, juror, oppor- the the repeat new to to deсline It was not error tion. tunity to see and hear all the on lan- witnesses thing in the identical almost the same trial; such second the same not did request. guage of the defendant’s process law, constitute due of 11 of the judgment must be error, We find remaining so being disqualified to affirmed. by serve reason of their the connection with Judge (dissenting). WADDILL, .trial, first Circuit and the odd like because, majority of the 11, I the he cannot conсur had not been drawn for the trial gives opinion as had, being in much of their then proceeding court so in the trial court wholly plain void and the action in approval to contravention jury, aft- the new the Fifth and selecting impaneling Sixth Amendments to the ordered, to the been federal had Constitution. er the mistrial tes- introduction of Briefly, the adopted in be said that the accused method (Amendment un- guarantеed The court new trial. to timony 6) on the the mis- speedy by the doubtedly impartial the to declare trial an ill- jury; serious deprived (Amend of. the he cannot upon being -satisfied be trial, ,-uess novo proceed 5) life, liberty, and to de ment of his property the is, process trial; law; without due the néw that he can selected, im- not drawn, (Amendment 5) the jury should have same ofíense be pre- put jeopardy, in the mannеr twiee paneled, compelled nor be to sworn 276 to be a (Judicial Code, himself; §§ witness by law and that scribed he 1253-1258, (Amendment has [Comp. the to in 286,' 6) §§ 287 St. 281, including the in- formed of the nature cause of 1263, 1264]); the ac proceeded cusation, testimony, and to be confronted with the troduction case. him. The as in other fact agreed accused dispute as to what what was done be no There seems to will not validity assure the single selected, same, occurred, person as viz. requirements jurors already regarding constitutional 11 along with the well manner method of trials, jury box sworn as the affecting as liberty life and progress of the trial testi- the citi ease, and in the zen, by cannot an be waived accused when stenographer at mony as taken down present Hopt at the trial. v. 110 U. the former trial was read 4 578, 579, 28 202, 262; L. Ed. stenographer notes, his and some proving Thompson Utah, 170 354, v. U. S. 345 to in stand, called to the the witnesses were (8-juror clusive, 620, 18 Ct. 42 L. Ed. 1061 stenographer’s notes em- who testified n se); Freeman 227 States, their evidence. What was done was braced ca 749, 256; F. 142 inclusive, 743 C. C. A. with the almost universal cus- accordance McClusky (C. parte C.) 76; Ex 71, F. cir- practice tom and in eivil cases like of North Hazledahl, State Dakota v. N. cumstances, adоpted but is there con- R. parties, thought 521, 315, D. N. W. sent of the and cannot Constitution, 2, pp. on save.by such Watson vol. consent. n says (on 53 and 54 majority opinion chs. the Fifth consent was Constitution); given Amendments here, and, consent, because of such Sixth pp. given Cooley’s Limitations, Constitutional approval apparently But thereto. bearing ste- upon also eases applicable wholly the law eivil cаses is

nographer’s olds upon not.’” put Ct. 161, 25 L. lied cused 250, 56 not bind in his life and fully taken, except liberty, and given p. 576. charges are not felony, is too the law of thority. while thorized ishment sustain ed tion of life or tial tures, merely upon cused, 110 U. Bl. Com. 133. state, whether any individual, neither of the offense Justice self, (this case “ That consent future trial and law. That which the law 993, 44 L. 'The natural legally be upon by the kept nor an in circumstancеs much States, 223 here, L. Ed. proceedings a conviction United Cooley’s Harlan, affected methods. individual, except “Consent infliction by any offenses away Ed. recognized the not the U. S. notes, viz.: less defendant). committed, liberty. old land, disposed 500, Ann. Cas. Ed. jeopardy, States, 98 U. S. custody, cannot by the life,’ ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‍says government Constitutional other of his to need in a criminal (in this expiation for a individual involving the consent of the ac- pher’s his mere Hopt public of one subject of deposition the mode cannot as Neither can great accused); wrongdoing own but the same kind.” Mr. grave restrained doctrine inclusive; Motes here, Blaekstone, 'can- in case object to citation 'since 470-474, of its 449, 32 S. GROVE authority.’ or atonement ports failure, pursuance makes essen- destroyed by man end of 3913C, person him- es.” fellow crea- assented Limitations, punishment and serious arbitration, an interest and be prevention prescribed there was case can- dispensed contend- property rights depriva- criminal Diaz v. basis to citizens, by witness United stitution an of his supra, Reyn- unau- 20 S. when v. 3 F.(2d) pun- law- (28 *5 au- Ct. ac- re- UNITED or vided for the trial law. waiver in a trial for crime there large mental differences. The one involves v. United States that the original nеss volves the This is the District Court waiver concerned that neither that of challenge, 86, 91, sent the that the himself and the district pher’s seems to attempt on Diaz here, Cas. States, supra (C. “There are U. duo one dominion. based STATES justice 1913C, 1138, or array Judge Rogers, It majority notes of evidence taken at a former notes; 92, process a matter over which the accused oí be read to the has been panel Reynolds trial S. Ct. some 145, 160, v. United constitution be well established in such cases both see general upon of authority have dominion. ordinarily must C. C. has been C. C. in of law.” disqualification, the,Supreme Court, opinion attorney 250, 56 L. Ed. number of eases where an competent (C. made who order that the now iu begin A. or life of doctrine permitting of one unknown in Freeman v. United stenographic where, state, fact sustain the A. crimes. shall a civil 1, hear all the to substitute have his full ruling parties, A. 6th cites and relies excused. The rule excludes Judge 256, 273, 6. 2nd de support be affected save 223 U. change owing novo, contended States, supra, This case, like tribunal Ed. 244, Cir.) case aud its Cir.) Between the accused the accused one Lurton, public, rights are funda- impaneled ruling that ease other stenogra- stenogra- in citing witness- to sick- thereоf. in Low S. citizen. order jury- Ann. pro- sup- over con- lat- up- are in- ist when L. Ed. well as the individual. tuted setting on “The 262). law for a crime matter to waive side of concerns by jury purpose the tribunal consti- Thus, the waiver of does not ex- involves the sub- sent. fact militate are well-known read, general proposition support, failure that the offered against, anything of the witness to defendant was exceptional cases, Reynolds Case, upon said in this dis- appear. responsible rather than notes These upon