Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

230 F.2d 607

Docket No. 12614.

Griffith v. United States

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 7, 1956.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-02-07

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Behrman · Gariepy v. United States · Ross v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-02-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2008

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

60195619601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Pattie L. Hilliard, Joe P. Peck, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

¶2Fred Elledge, Jr., and Andrew M. Gant, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appel-lee.

¶3Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal from judgment and sentence of three years’ imprisonment entered by the United States District Judge upon the verdict of a jury, finding defendant guilty on the first count of an indictment for violation of the Mann Act, Section 2421, Title 18, U.S.C.A., has been heard and considered upon the briefs and oral arguments of the opposing attorneys and upon the record in the case;

¶6And it appearing that the omission of the word “knowingly” in the indictment is insignificant, where the indictment charged that appellant had transported in interstate commerce a female from Birmingham, Alabama, to Nashville, Tennessee, via Corsicana, Texas, “for immoral purposes and commercialized prostitution”, inasmuch as the words used in the indictment plainly and definitely indicate that the essential ingredient of scienter existed in the mind of appellant; that the indictment *608is a sufficiently plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7, section (c), 18 U.S.C.A.; and that it meets the standard required by law[, Gariepy v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 459; Gariepy v. United States, 6 Cir., 220 F.2d 252; Ross v. United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 160, and United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619.];

¶7And it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and that there is no error of law in the rulings or the charge of United States District Judge Davies.

¶8The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

/230/f2d/607 · .json · Public domain