United States v. Gordon

138 F.2d 174, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2447
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedOctober 9, 1943
DocketNo. 8256
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 138 F.2d 174 (United States v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gordon, 138 F.2d 174, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2447 (7th Cir. 1943).

Opinion

KERNER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction tried by the court without a jury, upon an indictment charging Mittie Gordon and Seon Jones, the appellants, and two other defendants with violating section 34, SO U.S.C.A. in that, the United States being at war, the defendants entered into a conspiracy to violate section 33, SO U.S. C.A., by wilfully causing and attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States and by obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States.

The indictment charges that the seditious utterances were made, at various times, at Boulevard Hall in Chicago, Illinois, and were calculated and intended to wilfully cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces and to wilfully obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the ‘United States.1

From the evidence for the Government it was established that an organization known as the “Peace Movement of Ethiopia” was organized in 1932; that Mittie Gordon was the President General [176]*176of the Movement; that Seon Jones was a member of the organization, President of Local No. 1, Chairman of the meetings, and had sole authority to select the speakers and the subjects upon which they were to speak; and that Jones introduced Mittie Gordon to the audiences and was in accord with everything she said at the meetings. There was also evidence on behalf of the Government consisting of the testimony of several witnesses who had attended various meetings of a large number of persons, some of whom were liable for military service in the armed forces of the United States under the provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 301 et seq., tending to prove that the appellants made the remarks charged to them and clearly establishing a violation of the Act. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470, and Coldwell v. United States, 1 Cir., 256 F. 805.

The appellants argue that even if the utterances were made and constitute the offense of sedition, the mere fact that they were associated together and were members of the “Peace Movement of Ethiopia” is not such evidence from which conspiracy can be reasonably inferred.

The essence of the crime of conspiracy is two or more persons combining and confederating with the intent and purpose of committing a public offense by doing an unlawful act or doing a lawful act in an unlawful manner. It is seldom capable of proof by direct testimony and may be inferred from the things actually done. It is enough if the minds of the parties meet and unite in an understanding way with the single design to accomplish a common purpose, which may be established by circumstantial evidence or by deduction from facts from which the natural inference arises that the overt acts were in furtherance of a common design, intent and purpose. The common design is the essence of the crime, and this may be made to appear when the parties steadily pursue the same object, whether acting separately or together, by common or different means, but ever leading to the same unlawful result. If the parties act together to accomplish something unlawful, a conspiracy is shown. Eastern States, etc., v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490, L.R.A. 1915A, 788; Allen v. United States, 7 Cir., 4 F.2d 688; Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 490; and Eley v. United States, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 526.

We have already noted that Jones acted as Chairman of the meetings, that he had sole authority to select the speakers and the subjects upon which they were to speak, and that he was in accord with everything that Mittie Gordon said at the meetings. Under such circumstances, we believe there was substantial evidence from which the trial court was warranted in concluding that each appellant was a party to, and knowingly participated in, the conspiracy. United States v. Pelley, 7 Cir., 132 F.2d 170; Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583, 589, 40 S.Ct. 28, 63 L.Ed. 1154.

Finally, it is urged that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting certain letters and documents written by Mittie Gordon, similar to those set out in the indictment. This evidence was admitted upon the theory that it tended to show the intent with which she spoke the words charged. The introduction of such evidence, it' is argued, was prejudicial to appellant Jones.

The law is now well settled that prior utterances, statements and declarations are admissible when properly restricted to showing the intent of the individual making them, Kirchner v. United States, 4 Cir., 255 F. 301; Schoborg v. United States, 6 Cir., 264 F. 1; and United States v. Pelley, 7 Cir., 132 F.2d 170. In [177]*177admitting these exhibits the trial court distinctly stated they were not evidence against the other defendants, and that they were admitted only on the question of Mrs. Gordon’s intent. Under this state of the record, it was not error to admit them.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

A. C. Park v. H. T. (Tommy) Huff
506 F.2d 849 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Spock
416 F.2d 165 (First Circuit, 1969)
United States v. William Vanover and Vernon Vanover
339 F.2d 987 (Seventh Circuit, 1965)
United States v. Roy W. Johne
322 F.2d 265 (Seventh Circuit, 1963)
Herbert Daniel Castle v. United States
238 F.2d 131 (Eighth Circuit, 1956)
The United States of America v. Irving E. Morris
225 F.2d 91 (Seventh Circuit, 1955)
United States v. Bucur
194 F.2d 297 (Seventh Circuit, 1952)
United States v. Heine
149 F.2d 485 (Second Circuit, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 F.2d 174, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gordon-ca7-1943.