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.
MOFFETT et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1929 — 36 F.2d 357 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MOFFETT et al. v. UNITED STATES
36 F.2d 357·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1929
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
MOFFETT et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 20, 1929.
No. 2885.
Edgar Allan Poe, Jr., Edgar Allan Poe, and Isaac L. Straus, all of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
A. W. Woodcock, U. S. Atty., and William Childs Purnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before WADDELL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to violate the provisions of the National Prohibition Aet (27 USCA). The principal witness for the government was one Wilczewski, an accomplice; and the exceptions chiefly relied on relate to the sufficiency of his evidence to sustain a conviction and the charge of the court with regard thereto. The principles of law involved are well settled. Caminetti v. U. S., 242 U. S. 470, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1163; Holmgren v. U. S., 217 U. S. 509, 30 S. Ct. 588, 54 L. Ed. 861, 19 Ann. Cas. 778; Hoback v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 296 F. 5; Rosen v. U. S. (C. C. A. 2d) 271 F. 651; Rachmil v. U. S. (C. C. A. 2d) 288 F. 782; Albert v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6th) 281 F. 511; O’Brien v. U. S. (C. C. A. 7th) 25 F.(2d) 90. They were correctly and fairly applied by the learned District Judge; and there is no occasion for further discussing them.
Much of the record is taken up with testimony as to force exerted upon the defendants to extort confessions from them. The court, however, excluded these confessions, and they cannot have prejudiced defendants on the trial. The methods used in obtaining the confessions were highly reprehensible; but they were not employed by government officers or other public officials, and, as stated, the confessions were not admitted in evidence on the trial.
After careful consideration, we are satisfied that there was no error in the trial below, and that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Affirmed.