Victor L. De Casaus v. United States

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of making a false statement to an investigating officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation (hereafter CCC) in violation of 15 U.S.C.A. § 714m. 1 He attacks his conviction generally as being based on an insufficient indictment and as not being supported by the evi *152 dence. The indictment is set out in footnote 2 below.

The proof in the case for the government was that appellant, as general manager of Casaus Company, had negotiated the purchase for export of some 15,000 cwt. of lima beans from the CCC for a price below the domestic market price. Failure so to export rendered the Company liable to the CCC for the difference between the price paid and the domestic market price. Investigation by CCC produced evidence (introduced at the trial) showing that a substantial amount of the beans purchased from the CCC were sold domestically, and that documents supplied by Casaus Company showing export of such beans were false. The government’s chief witness was one Kennedy, a special agent of CCC. He testified that on November 1, 1954, during his investigation, he met with appellant and was shown a paper wherein appellant had stated that…

(concurring specially).

I think it is in order to say something about the specification of error based on the refusal of the court to require a production of customs office records for defendant’s inspection. Appellant’s presentation of this point is most inadequate. Wholly apart from the language of our Rule 18, 28 U.S.C.A., relating to the form and contents of briefs, it is fundamental that it is the duty of an appellant here to present an intelligible brief so that this court can learn therefrom what the party is talking about.

Here appellant argues about his motion, application or request to be permitted to examine or inspect records, but his brief contains not one single reference to any page of the ten-volume record, nor does it quote or state the substance of the asserted motion or application. By dint of a search, which no court should be required to make without the assistance of counsel, I find that midway of the trial appellant asked and was ordered to be allowed to inspect the export declarations covering the periods encompassing the dates of the claimed shipments specified in counts 1 and 3 of the indictment. Government witnesses had testified that in these periods…

250 F.2d 150 Victor L. DE CASAUS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15389. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 22, 1957, Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1958. Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Lloyd F. Dunn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before HEALY, POPE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. HEALY, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of making a false statement to an investigating officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation (hereafter CCC) in violation of 15 U.S.C.A. 714m. 1 He attacks his conviction generally as being based on an insufficient indictment and as not being supported by the evidence. The indictment is set out in footnote 2 below. 2 The proof in the case for the government was that appellant, as general manager of Casaus Company, had negotiated the purchase for export of some 15,000 cwt. of lima beans from the CCC for a price below the domestic market price. Failure so to export rendered the Company liable to the CCC for the difference between the price paid and the domestic market price. Investigation by CCC produced evidence (introduced at the…