Elmer Ethridge v. United States

258 F.2d 234 Elmer ETHRIDGE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15784. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 18, 1958. John H. McRae, Thomas P. Delaney, Spokane, Wash., for appellant. William B. Bantz, U. S. Atty., Riner E. Deglow, Asst. U. S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for appellee. Before BONE, POPE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. BONE, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was indicted and convicted before a jury for a violation of Section 1503 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. and thereafter sentenced to two years and six months confinement. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction. The pertinent part of § 1503 reads: 2 "Whoever corruptly * * * endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * *" The indictment charged: 3 "That on or about the 13th day of July, 1956 at Sunnyside, * * * [appellant] did corruptly endeavor to impede the due administration of justice; that is to say * * * [appellant] did agree and promise to Harry C. Walters that for the sum of $1000.00, he [appellant] could and would see that Harry C. Walters could get probation and would not serve one day of his sentence for the…

Appellant was indicted and convicted before a jury for a violation of Section 1503 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. and thereafter sentenced to two years and six months confinement. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction.

The pertinent part of § 1503 reads:

The indictment charged:

*235 The substance of appellant’s specifications of error is reflected in three major contentions in which he challenges the validity of his conviction. He therein contends: (1) that the indictment did not charge, nor did the evidence show, an offense against the United States; (2) the court erred in instructing the jury as to the intent necessary to find appellant guilty of the crime of endeavoring to impede the due administration of justice; (3) certain evidence pertaining to actions of appellant which were not directly related to the crime charged were improperly admitted in evidence.

The conclusion we reach in disposing of the first specification of error makes it unnecessary to discuss or dispose of the other two contentions. We are persuaded that appellant’s first specification of error must be sustained and the judgment of conviction reversed, this for the reason that the facts adduced at trial…

(concurring) .

1 concur in the result. In the vernacular, the trouble with the indictment and the proof is that the plot just didn’t get “off the ground.” I believe the district attorney (with great resourcefulness) has to search too hard when he suggests that Ethridge’s conduct might have resulted in Walters giving up his right of appeal. I believe it is a mistake in the usual case under Section 1503 to regard the intent of him who receives the proposal to influence the course of justice as too important. For example, if Ethridge had offered money to a juror, the juror having no intention to accept, there would of course be an endeavor to influence. Here we had what was really an incipient and stupid confidence game which literally and figuratively didn’t get near, or get started toward the courthouse.

*237 It is clear here that the jury believed Walters and disbelieved Ethridge’s denials that the proposition was made. Of course, perjury trials are difficult when it is one man’s word vis-a-vis another’s and there may not be enough corroboration under Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. €06, 65 S.Ct. 548 , 89 L.Ed. 495 , to proceed against Ethridge. At least the district attorney…