United States v. Moy Toom

224 F. 520, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1383
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 2, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 224 F. 520 (United States v. Moy Toom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Moy Toom, 224 F. 520, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1383 (S.D.N.Y. 1915).

Opinion

EACOMBE,, Circuit Judge.

As to the technical point raised that on his first examination defendant was instructed to answer questions as truthfully as he could, although he had stated that he did not want to answer any question till he saw a lawyer, I fully concur with Judge Hough’s ruling in United States v. Lem You, 224 Fed. 519. It would seem to make little difference whether this preliminary inquisition is had before inspector or commissioner, so long as thereafter the Chinese person is given opportunity to appear with counsel, to be examined (this defendant did not take the stand on the formal examination), to call witnesses, and to have counsel, if he chooses, to cross-examine witnesses called by the government. All these privileges he had. An offer to hear further testimony in this court was declined. Examination of very many records in these cases has induced the conviction that it tends greatly to elucidate the truth to hear what the Chinese person has to say about such simple facts as his age, parentage, relationships, occupation, and localities where he has lived, and the circumstances attending his latest entry into this country, before bis lawyer appears.

The discrepancies between defendant’s story and that of his witness are so great that my conclusion is the same as the commissioner’s.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Lee Hee
60 F.2d 924 (Second Circuit, 1932)
United States v. Hen Lee
236 F. 794 (S.D. New York, 1916)
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
227 F. 247 (D. Maryland, 1915)
Ung Bak Foon v. Prentis
227 F. 406 (Seventh Circuit, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 F. 520, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-moy-toom-nysd-1915.