Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. GATES, 1933 — 67 F.2d 885 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. GATES
67 F.2d 885·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. GATES.
No. 202.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 4, 1933.
George W. Herz, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg, Emanuel Bubliek, and William T. Cowin, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
This is a companion ease to U. S. v. Lonardo, 67 F.(2d) 883, decided herewith. However, the evidence as. to Gates was very different. He took the stand and admitted that Iiatlen had showed the bills to him, but he said that he had told him to destroy them. One bill was found in his clothes, and he voL unteered to show the officers where the rest were. No question arises as to the competency of his confession, if it was a confession at all. The sole issue was as to whether after Hatlen showed him the bills, he co-operated with him in disposing of them, and, in view of his conduct, that was for the jury. He assigns as error several rulings at the trial and parts of the. charge, but the errors, if any there were, were not of a kind to disturb the result. They consist at most of formal irregularities which, in view of the proof, we need not consider in detail.
Judgment affirmed.