Free Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 117.8 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,312 Words, 7,920 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35654/333-4.pdf

Download Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware ( 117.8 kB)


Preview Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 333-4 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 333-4 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
255 F.2d 619 Page 1
255 F.2d 619
(Cite as: 255 F.2d 619)
C
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. {3] Criminal Law <§:=¤ 577
Eiward BAKER, aiso known as Jimmy Butter, l IOk577 Most Cited Cases
Appeliam, Defendant could not successfuliy complain that his
v. counsel was forced to go to trial without adequate
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. time to prepare, where defendant delayed trial by
No. l5762.. changing lawyers until he finally selected counsel
originally appointed for him by court, and counsel
May 6, 1958. adequately conducted defense in what was
essentially a fact case.
Defendant was convicted in the United States *620 Robert E. Benton, Los Angeles, Cal., for
District Court for the Southern District of appeliant.
California, Central Division, Peirson MM Hall, J., of
vioiation of the Mann Act, and he appealed. The Laughiin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., T. Conrad iudd.
Court of Appeals, Chambers, Circuit Judge, held Lloyd F. Dunn, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles,
that fact that defendant had been compelled to leave Cal., for appetlee.
Arizona by Arizona Eaw enforcement officers was
not inconsistent with the intent requisite under Marin Before FEE, CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit
Act to support conviction for transporting woman in Judges.
interstate commerce for immoral purposes, where
oflicers permitted defendant to return and bring CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.
woman with him, and defendant and woman were
both willing to have her accompany him. Baker has been found guilty of the count that ori or
about April E, I957, he ‘did knowingly transport a
Af`iirmet;i.. woman, namely: Sally ”‘ * in interstate
commerce, namely: fiom Las Vegas, Nevada, to
West Headnotes Los Angeles, California, * * "’ for prostitution.
debauchery and other immoral purposes}
[1] Criminal Law @>=¤ 37i(9)
llOl·t37i(9) Most Cited Cases Simultaneously, the counts being inconsistent, the
In prosecution for transporting woman from Nevada jury acquitted Baker on a count charging him with,
to Califomia for purposes of prostitution, evidence on the same date for the same purposes, transporting
of defendanfs pattern of conduct of pimping in Sally from Phoenix, Arizona, to Los Angeles,
Arizona was admissible as bearing on his later intent California. Involved was the Mann Act. See 18
in taking woman across state lirie. 18 U.StC.A. § U.S.C.A. § 2421.
2,42l.
r Witnesses were produced by the government. The
{2] Prostitution <£>‘;=··= 19(El) govemme:1t`s case may be summarized:
3 l5l—fkI 9{Y5) Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 3l6k1) [1] 1. After Sally became intimately acquainted
Fact that defendant had been compelled to leave with Baker at Phoenix in late December, 1956, he,
Arizona by Arizona law enforcement officers was for some three months, had been sporadically taking
not inconsistent with the intent requisite under Mann her to labor camps near Phoenix, where with the
Act to support conviction for transporting woman in meanest of surrounding appointments she had sold
interstate commerce, from Nevada to California for herseif for a price to the field laborers seriatim, the
immoral purposes, where officers permitted price going always to Baker. (This was not
defendant to return and bring woman with him, and commeice among states, so there was no federai
defendant and woman were both willing to have her crime yet. But this pattern was admissible as
accompany him, and they stopped in Nevada before bearing on Bai;er’s later intent in taking Sally across
proceeding to California. ES U.S.C`.A. § 242i. the California line.)
° 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig U.S. Govt. Works.
me

Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 333-4 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
255 F.2d 619 Page 2
(Cite as: 255 li`t2d 619, *62.0)
2i About March 30, 1957, law ofiicers at Phoenix go, wanting to go, and Baker wanting to come back
were ’floating` Baker out of town and out of the after her, there is not too much doubt that the jury
state. Baker was in at friend’s car driven by the was not precluded from returning a guilty verdict on
friend. This car was foiiowed by an escort of that count-- if they had thought the trip was actually
officers While Baker was making his forced across the Arizona—Cali€ornia Eine. Evidently the
exodus from Phoenix, another officer who had been jury thought that after the journey was broken at Las
keeping Baker and Salty under surveillance, Vegas a new purpose to go to Caiitornia aroser
apparently for narcotics activity. dropped hack to Thus, the problem defendant poses answers itself.
the apartment or room where Saély and Baker had Assume the Arizona officers escorted Baker and
been living for some time. Sally was there with her Sally against their wills all ofthe way to the Nevada
meagre belongings packed, ready to travel. Seeing line. Could the defendant then take Sally for his
the situation, the officer went to his car and radioed mixed personal and cornmerciak purposes from state
the escort car west of Phoenix to bring Baker back to state? The law is not that weak. Thus, we
and get Sally. (This was done at her behest or with dispose of the point.
her consent Further, *621 it was agreeable to
Baker.) So the short entourage returned to Phoenix, [3] Defendant also complains that his counsel was
Baker picked up Sally andthe westwardjourney was forced to go to trial without adequate time to
resumed. The omcers turned back short ofthe state prepare. The record shows that the trial court
line. suffered patiently from day to day while defendant
heid up starting the trial, ‘putting and taltirrgf
3. The weakest link in the governmenfs proof is lawyers. Present counsel, appointed by the court,
whether Sally and Baker first went to Las Vegas in was his first and also his iasti During the trial his
Nevada before proceeding to Los Angeles where counsel showed fuii iatniiiarity with the facts and it
they appeared April 3, i95“i’ Jurymen could have was essentially a `fact case? No complaint was
thought that there was only one trip to Las Vegas. made at the trial that there had been no opportunity
Earlier in February the two had made a trip from to bring witnesses. Counsel competently and
Phoenix to Las Vegas and return. But there was spiendidiy represented the defendant, considering he
adequate evidence that Baker and Sally on their didn’thave much defense.
second trip did stop for a {ew days in Las Vegas
before proceeding to Los Atngeies in the early days In conformity with current policy, this appeal
of April-- if the juryrnen wanted to believe it. They (which only raises questions of fact and is without
did. merit) has been brought here at high cost and at the
expense of the taxpayers. This comment involves
4 In South L.os Angeles, the defendant, living no criticism of counsel, who had discharged his duty
with Sally, was active in solicitation of customers in the best tradition ofhis profession.
for her, as wei! as sending het out on the streets to
solicit aione~~ all for his financial gain Judgment afhmted.
5. The inducement to Salty, she said, was that the .255 F..2d 619
defendant was suppiying her with narcotics, for
which she had acquired a habit. END OF DOCUMENT
On appeai, del“endant~appeEEarit principally attacks
on the ground that Baiter and Saliy were driven
(forced out) of Arizona; that this compulsion is
inconsistent with the required intent under the Mann
Act.
{2] The problem would require more serious
thought if the jury had not acquitted him of directly
transporting the defendant from Arizona to
California, but even then with Saiiy packed ready to
G2 2006 Thomson!West. No Claim to Orig U.S` Govt. Works. ___M 4
its
\/V§2Si§..d`\/\L