Russo v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Russo v. United States

18 F.2d 1021, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1927

DocketNo. 4838

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F.2d 1021 (Russo v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russo v. United States, 18 F.2d 1021, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149 (6th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The indictment, brought under section 39 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10203), is attacked as insufficient because it alleges only the payment of money to a prohibition agent “to procure and obtain the release of” a prisoner charged with violating the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138 et seq.), and “to obtain the dismissal of the case then pending,” wherein this prisoner was charged with violating the National Prohibition Act; and it is said that these matters of release or dismissal cannot be brought before a prohibition agent in his official capacity, and hence the indictment does not allege that this agent was to be induced “to do or not to do any act in violation of his lawful duty.” This contention, while it has superficial force, must be overruled, on the authority of our decisions in Rembrandt v. U. S., 281 F. 122; Browne v. U. S., 290 F. 870, 872; Cohen v. U. S., 294 P. 488, 489.

The defense of entrapment presented, at most, a question for a jury. There is no criticism of the charge thereon. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The indictment, brought under section 39 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10203), is attacked as insufficient because it alleges only the payment of money to a prohibition agent “to procure and obtain the release of” a prisoner charged with violating the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138 et seq.), and “to obtain the dismissal of the case then pending,” wherein this prisoner was charged with violating the National Prohibition Act; and it is said that these matters of release or dismissal cannot be brought before a prohibition agent in his official capacity, and hence the indictment does not allege that this agent was to be induced “to do or not to do any act in violation of his lawful duty.” This contention, while it has superficial force, must be overruled, on the authority of our decisions in Rembrandt v. U. S., 281 F. 122; Browne v. U. S., 290 F. 870, 872; Cohen v. U. S., 294 P. 488, 489.

The defense of entrapment presented, at most, a question for a jury. There is no criticism of the charge thereon. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F.2d 1021, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-united-states-ca6-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack