Mills v. United States

Second Circuit

Mills v. United States

12 F.2d 1016, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3452

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 1926

DocketNo. 398

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F.2d 1016 (Mills v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mills v. United States, 12 F.2d 1016, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3452 (2d Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We can see nothing in this record which justifies reversal, or indeed calls for discussion. The ease was clearly one for the jury, and the supposed errors either do not exist or are not of importance. However, the District Judge sentenced Mills to two years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy count and to a like term on the count for abetting in the concealment of assets, the two terms to run in sequence.

We have no power to disturb this result, the two crimes being technically separate. But we have repeatedly disapproved of indicting a defendant for conspiracy when the crime itself was committed, and it is especially objectionable to join in one indictment a conspiracy count with one for the crime contemplated in the conspiracy. When this is followed by a cumulative sentence of the maximum term on each count, the result seems to us a plain perversion of the purpose of Congress. In our judgment, after the defendant has served his sentence on the count for abetting, he should be released, and, if we had any power in the premises, we should not hesitate then to release him. We think it at this time not out of place respectfully to suggest such a course to the pardoning power.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We can see nothing in this record which justifies reversal, or indeed calls for discussion. The ease was clearly one for the jury, and the supposed errors either do not exist or are not of importance. However, the District Judge sentenced Mills to two years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy count and to a like term on the count for abetting in the concealment of assets, the two terms to run in sequence.

We have no power to disturb this result, the two crimes being technically separate. But we have repeatedly disapproved of indicting a defendant for conspiracy when the crime itself was committed, and it is especially objectionable to join in one indictment a conspiracy count with one for the crime contemplated in the conspiracy. When this is followed by a cumulative sentence of the maximum term on each count, the result seems to us a plain perversion of the purpose of Congress. In our judgment, after the defendant has served his sentence on the count for abetting, he should be released, and, if we had any power in the premises, we should not hesitate then to release him. We think it at this time not out of place respectfully to suggest such a course to the pardoning power.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.2d 1016, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-united-states-ca2-1926.