Firpo v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Criminal prosecution by the United States against Joseph Firpo. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
1DissentHough, Circuit Judge
Shillace was over 16 and under 18 when he enlisted. Therefore he could be and was a deserter as fully as any adult. Solomon v. Davenport, 87 Fed. 318, 30 C. C. A. 664; Hoskins v. Pell, 239 Fed. 279, 152 C. C. A. 267, L. R. A. 1917D, 1053. Firpo, as an attorney, was peculiarly bound to know this law.
Desertion is not a single act, like striking a blow; it is a persistent absence from duty, with the intent of staying away, and is therefore a continuing offense. Firpo knew that this was his client’s condition; the jury has so found. When the attorney advised his deserter client to go and hide and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Solomon v. DavenportCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1898
- Hoskins v. PellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917