TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kuhn v. United States

KUHN Et Al. v. UNITED STATES

Kuhn v. United States, 26 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 14, 1928
Docket
No. 5162
Judges
Gilbert, Rudkin, Dietrich
Citations
26 F.2d 4631928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3699

Opinion — Dietrich

DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.

Upon a re-examination of the record, we have concluded that we were in error in holding the evidence sufficient to warrant a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant Moon participated in the enterprise, with knowledge of its unlawful character. The most material circumstance against him is that he was on or about the Talbot the night the arms were taken on board. But they were in bo-xes or cases, and he may very well have been ignorant of the contents, or of their destination. We think, too, we failed to attach due significance to the fact that Borresen, who freely gave evidence for the government, at no time testified that there was any communication to Moon touching the real object of the voyage. Moon is not shown to have had any connection with any of the parties prior to his employment, and Borresen came into contact with him through an employment agency, where he engaged him to act as cabin boy at $40 per month, apparently a reasonable compensation. For some reason not disclosed, Moon either quit or was dismissed while the Talbot was at Coos Bay, and thereafter, so far as we are advised, he had nothing more to do with the enterprise. True, Borresen testified that either Swinehart or Gum told him, but not *464 in the presence of Moon,- that Moon should have a half share, or $500 interest. But, giving to the rules of evidence in conspiracy cases the widest reasonable latitude, we are aware of no principle under which the declaration of one conspirator to another is competent to establish the connection of a third person with the conspiracy. Accordingly, as to Moon, the judgment below will be reversed, with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

The petitions for rehearing presented by the other defendants are thought to be without merit, and are denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1932: 21933: 11934: 11937: 11946: 11954: 11961: 11962: 11963: 11965: 11968: 11970: 11971: 11972: 11974: 11975: 11977: 11984: 11999: 119322026peak 1932 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nibbelink v. United States66 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1933)
  2. United States v. Peter Insana423 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 1970)
  3. Minner v. United States57 F.2d 506 (10th Cir. 1932)
  4. United States v. Wilson Torres503 F.2d 1120 (2d Cir. 1974)
  5. United States v. Robert Blackwood and Tobias Cohen456 F.2d 526 (2d Cir. 1972)
  6. State v. Newbern975 P.2d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

Most recent

  1. State v. Newbern975 P.2d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)
  2. United States v. William F. Crouch731 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1984)
  3. United States v. Donald Antonio Ragghianti560 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1977)
  4. United States v. Forrest Gerry, Jr. And Richard Perry515 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1975)
  5. United States v. Wilson Torres503 F.2d 1120 (2d Cir. 1974)
  6. United States v. Robert Blackwood and Tobias Cohen456 F.2d 526 (2d Cir. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list