United State v. Bachman
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Clawson Bachman and Joseph T. Hayden were indicted for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud. There was a verdict of conviction. Sur defendants’ motions in arrest and for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
[1,2] The motion in arrest of judgment calls for a word of explanation. The case was submitted to the jury at the close of the session of the court. It was anticipated the court might not be in session when the jury were ready to return their verdict. It was in consequence of this agreed that the clerk might take the verdict, when rendered, as if the court were in session and a verdict were given in open court, with the trial judge present. The’ verdict was so rendered, and as a further consequence no instructions were given to the jury, but the verdict was taken…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. NicelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Commonwealth v. HustonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Clouser v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. PearlsteinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Wayne Rosser Abbott v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
- United States v. PearlsteinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- United States v. Gordon L. PlattCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1970
- Troy Shelton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956