TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Clarence A. Swank

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence A. SWANK, A/K/A Jack Swank, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Swank, 441 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1971)
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
April 27, 1971
Docket
No. 26463_1
Judges
Chambers, Hufstedler, Per Curiam, Wright
Citations
441 F.2d 2641971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10532

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Swank appeals his conviction, after jury trial, for violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 *265 (federal conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (use of wire facilities in interstate commerce for transmitting wagering information). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Appellant, an inveterate horse player, developed a distaste for the uncertainties of regular methods of betting. He had contacts with people at the race track and obtained information on fixed races. He bet large sums of money through bookmakers to avoid affecting adversely the track odds.

Appellant would inform his bookie about two weeks ahead of the race of the size of the bet so that the bookie could protect himself by “laying off” all or part of appellant’s bets. Appellant would then inform the bookie of the horse, race and track about an hour before race time to prevent knowledge of the large bet from being widely circulated. In “laying off” the bets the bookie and appellant used interstate telephone wires.

We have carefully examined appellant’s numerous assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

The only contention worthy of discussion is that, while appellant intentionally violated state law, he had no intent to commit a violation of federal law. We reject that contention on two grounds.

First, the knowing use of interstate facilities is not an essential element of either the substantive offense or the conspiracy to commit it.

Second, if it were, the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant made at least one interstate telephone call. We deem that call to be sufficient involvement to uphold the conviction.

Cf.

United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879, 890-892 (9th Cir. 1970).

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11973: 11979: 11981: 11983: 219712026peak 1983 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Southard700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  2. United States v. Wayne Donaway447 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1971)
  3. United States v. Jack Southard, United States of America v700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  4. United States v. Charles E. Sellers, Jr.483 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1973)
  5. United States v. Frank Scavo593 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1979)
  6. United States v. Baborian528 F. Supp. 324 (D.R.I. 1981)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Jack Southard, United States of America v700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  2. United States v. Southard700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  3. United States v. Baborian528 F. Supp. 324 (D.R.I. 1981)
  4. United States v. Frank Scavo593 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1979)
  5. United States v. Charles E. Sellers, Jr.483 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1973)
  6. United States v. Wayne Donaway447 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1971)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1970) 196

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