United States v. Prock
This text of 105 F. Supp. 263 (United States v. Prock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Just prior to the effective date of the Act of the Texas Legislature, making it a felony to have possession of slot machines within the State, Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., p. 299, ch. 178, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 642a,1 many slot machines migrated from Texas. Among these were 65 machines which left Galveston, Texas, in this Division and District, on or about September 6, 1951, destined for the Foreign Trade Zone2 in New Orleans, Louisiana, with their final destination Central America. They crossed from Texas into Louisiana at or near Orange, Texas, enroute to New Orleans, Louisiana, and were seized [264]*264by Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Lake Charles in the State of Louisiana. Thereafter Defendant George Prock and two. others were indicted under the Act of Congress of January 2, 1951, Section 1171 et seq., ■ Title 15, U.S.C.A., being charged in Count One of the Indictment with conspiring to transport and in Count Two with transporting such 65 machines in violation of Section 1172, and being charged in Count Three with failure to register such slot machines under Section 1173. They entered pleas of not guilty and were tried with a Jury. At the conclusion of the Government’s case, the Government dismissed Count Three, and the Motion of Defendants for an acquittal under Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 29, 18 U. S.C.A., was granted as to Counts One and Two.
1: Unless prohibited by Statute, slot machines or other gambling devices may be freely shipped in either intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce. A reading of such Statute, Act of January 2, 1951, and particularly Section 11723 thereof, is convincing that it has no application either to shipments of gambling devices in intrastate' commerce or in foreign commerce. It applies only to shipments in interstate commerce, i. e., shipments of gambling devices from a place in a State to a place in any other State, the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States. The Government has the burden to show transportation in interstate commerce in order to convict' persons charged under the Act.
The Government in this case has wholly failed to satisfy the burden of proof. In my view all the evidence offered showed unmistakably that the 65 slot machines in question, for the transportation of which defendants are being prosecuted, were shipped, not in either intrastate or interstate commerce, but in foreign commerce. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to 'have their Motion for Acquittal sustained. It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 F. Supp. 263, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-prock-txsd-1952.