Shirley Kremen, Carl Ross, Samuel Irving Coleman, and Sidney Steinberg v. United States

A depressing tale of lies, disguises, and aliases resorted to by a group of seasoned subversives, referred to by their own attorneys as “these Communists”, is unfolded by the record in this case.

It is a tale of how a handful of Reds sought to shield a convicted member of their group from condign punishment.

It is a tale of the devious practices to which they resorted in their almost successful efforts to cheat the law.

It is, finally, a tale of how their deceptions and their subterfuges were frustrated at last by the patient labors of Federal “Cossacks”, as officers of the law are sometimes contemptuously called by the Reds.

With regard to the means used by “the Communists” to help a pair of their leaders to thwart justice, it is naive indeed to expect to find them hiding in alleys, skulking in twilight corners, turning up their coat collars, or pulling their hats down over their eyes.

No; the hard-core members are far too adroit and well-instructed for such amateurish cloak-and-dagger technique. They select a quiet village, rent a cabin, and then, wearing shorts, play ping-pong in their front yard. Or they add touching domestic notes, hanging up the fami *156 ly wash or…

(dissenting).

The court’s opinion violates the long established and essentially required practice of considering separately the different appeals of the four appellants, presenting in all eighteen contentions of error. The opinion’s pages of high rhetoric of the obvious, denouncing those who would seek to overthrow the government *179 by force, creates no excuse for such a violation. Rather it enforces our obligation to proceed in the non-Bolshevik method of such separate consideration of each of the several contentions of each defendant presented here. It is pertinent that the trial judge found no such condign wickedness in the demeanor of the defendants before him or in the reports of the probation officer. Of the 18 U.S.C. § 3 cases he imposed less than the maximum sentences and by making some of the sentences concurrent, none received the maximum sentence.

I. The Convictions of Kremen, Ross and Coleman of Violating 18 U.S.C. § 1071 .

A. What Must Be Proved.

To convict one of violating Section 1071 the Government must prove that he harbored or concealed, so as to prevent discovery or arrest, any person for whose arrest a warrant had been issued under any law of the United…

231 F.2d 155 Shirley KREMEN, Carl Ross, Samuel Irving Coleman, and Sidney Steinberg, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 14359. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. January 20, 1956. Rehearing Denied April 20, 1956. Gladstein, Andersen & Leonard, & Sibbett, Richard Gladstein, Norman Leonard, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., Robert H. Schnacke, Richard H. Foster, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and LEMMON, Circuit Judges. LEMMON, Circuit Judge. 1 A depressing tale of lies, disguises, and aliases resorted to by a group of seasoned subversives, referred to by their own attorneys as "these Communists", is unfolded by the record in this case. 2 It is a tale of how a handful of Reds sought to shield a convicted member of their group from condign punishment. 3 It is a tale of the devious practices to which they resorted in their almost successful efforts to cheat the law. 4 It is, finally, a tale of how their deceptions and their subterfuges were frustrated at last by the patient labors of Federal "Cossacks", as officers of the law are sometimes contemptuously…