Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Reginelli v. United States

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

MARCO REGINELLI,

Petitioner,

Vs. =

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT

and

BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF -

Wriuiam A, Gray,

Counsel for Petitioner.

2100 Girard Trust Company Bldg.,

Philadelphia, Pa.

Murrelle Printing Company, Law Printers, 201-203 Lockhart St., Sayre, Pa.

Jos. M. Mitchell, Philadelphia County tive, Philadelphia, Pa.

5738 Thomas Ave. SAR6450

SUBJECT INDEX

PETITION: Pace

Statement of Matter Involved .................. 1

SE OE TOP 5 oo in ee A CK i

Questions Presented oot Ok ai ee tC as 5

Reasons Relied upon for Allowance of Writ... .. 6

Brigr 1n Support or Petition:

CR IN ke ee bac ees eee 8

ee ee re Ne mE ore 8

Argument:

1, The Mann Act Was Never Intended to

Apply to the Present Circumstances ..... 9

2. There Was Insufficient Evidence to Sub-

mit to the JOry 35 Se oe aR Has 13

3. The Evidence Being Circumstantial and

not Excluding Every Hypothesis but that

of Guilt, the Trial Judge Erroneously

Permitted the Case to Go to the Jury .. 17

Conan oe a ee ae 18

TABLE OF CASES

Paar

Alpert v. United States, 12 F. 2d 352........ ....... 17

American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284 10

Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469. ....... 12

i

Biggerstaff v. United States, 260 F.926.............. 14

Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S.470 ............9,12

Farmer v. United States, 128 F.2d 970.............. 13

Fisher v. United States, 266 F. 667 ................. 14

Harrison v. Northern Trust Co., U.S. , 87 L.

“2 S&S Seer ae cere ene waa

Hunter v. United States, 45 F.2d 55 ....... regen:

Leslie v. United States, 43 F.2d 288 ................ 17

Milk Wagon Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Farm

SPUN I III oo rien gs 12

Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corp., 128 F. 2d 208 ... 9

Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675 ............ 13

Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S.417 .. ..... , a

Sloan v. United States, 287 F.91 .................... 14

Spies v. United States, U.S. , 37 L. ed. 342; 68

Mencia Abe Oa. cs ee

United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554 ............. 12

United States v. Grace, 73 F. 2d 294 ............... an

United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S.219......_...... 12

United States v. Katz, 271 U.S.354........ ........ 10

United States v. Local 807, 315 U.S.521 ............ 12

United States v. Monia, U.S. , 87 L. ed. 297;

EE eas teres ink. oct rey 11,12

United States v. Russo, 123 F. 2d 420............... 17

United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S.16........ 12

United States v. Simon, 119 F. 24 679... aN eS

United States v. Tatcher, 1381 F.2d 1002... {ae

United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, U.S. , 87

an Oe. Goes Ge eee eer PE. 10, 12

a

Welsch v. United States, 220 F. 764 .............. 10

Yoder v. United States, 80 F.2d 665 .............. ee

StaTuTE Cirep:

Act of June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825 (18 U.S. C. A.

PE a eta fog ae Ba oe ee tag ome 1

Orne AutHority Crrep:

32 C. J. S. page 1089, Section 1038 .................. 16

iii

Summary Statement of Matter Involved

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

February Term, 1943

Marco Reginelli, Petitioner

vs.

United States of America, Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD

CIRCUIT

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Your petitioner respectfully represents :

I

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MATTER INVOLVED

The petitioner was indicted in the District Court for

the District of New Jersey for violation of the White Slave

Traffic Act (18 U.S. C. A. 398, 399).

The indictment contained three counts charging, inter

alia, as follows (R. 3a):

1. That the petitioner ‘‘did wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously, knowingly aid and assist in obtaining trans-

portation for and in transporting in interstate commerce”’

one Louise Abate, ‘‘with intent and purpose * * * to induce,

to

Summary Statement of Matter Involved

entice and compel the said Louise Abate’’ to have sexual

intercourse with him.

2. That the petitioner ‘‘did wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously, knowingly persuade, induce and entice and aid

and assist in persuading, inducing and enticing’’ the said

Louise Abate to go in interstate commerce from Camden,

New Jersey to Miami, Florida ‘‘for the immoral purpose

of illicit sexual intercourse with him’’ and ‘‘did thereby

and by means of such persuading, inducing and enticing,

knowingly cause and aid and assist in causing the said

Louise Abate to go and to be carried and transported in

interstate commerce.”’

3. That the petitioner did wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously, knowingly transport and cause to be trans-

ported in interstate commerce said Louise Abate ‘‘with the

intent and purpose * * * to induce, entice and compel the

said Louise Abate to engage in the immoral practice of

illicit sexual intercourse with him.”’

The Government called as its first witness, Louise

Abate, who testified that she was 22 years old and had

known the petitioner for two years (R. lla); that in Janu-

ary, 1942, petitioner took a trip to Miami, Florida; that she

did not know when he left Camden, nor did she discuss the

trip with him (R. lla); that she received three telegrams

from petitioner and that he telephoned her a few times

(R. 12a-13a); that she at length told petitioner over the

telephone that she was going to Florida for a vacation

(R. 14a); that he objected because the weather was bad but

that she insisted; that she asked him if he would pay the

fare and he agreed to do so after talking to her father and

receiving his consent (R. 14a); that petitioner made the

reservation for the trip and paid the fare (R. 16a); that

she took a plane from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Miami,

Florida (R. 17a); that petitioner met her at the airport

Summary Statement of Matter Involved

in Florida and wanted to get her a room but she asked to

be taken to his room at the President Madison Hotel to

wash up before determining where she would stay (R. 27a);

that she decided to stay with him and despite his objection,

she insisted (R. 27a); that she had sexual relations with

him a few times (R. 28a); that she ate her meals with peti-

tioner and was continually in his company; and that after a

ten days’ stay petitioner paid her train fare to Philadel-

phia (R. 29a).

The next witness was Albert Tuller who was a clerk at

the cigar stand in the President Madison Hotel. He testi-

fied that he saw both Miss Abate and the petitioner in the

lobby of the hotel (R. 35a).

The Government then called Leon Kramer, the owner

of the said cigar stand, who likewise testified that he saw

the petitioner and Miss Abate on the beach and in the

lobby (R. 36a).

Anna Johnson, a chambermaid, was the next witness.

She testified that the petitioner and Miss Abate occupied

the same room at the hotel and that although the room con-

tained a single bed as well as a double bed, only the latter

was used. She testified further that she found breakfast

service in the room, sometimes for one, sometimes for

two (R. 38a). :

The final Government witness was Solomon Cohen, the

manager of the hotel. He testified that defendant was

registered from January 23, 1942 to February 22, 1942;

that he paid $6.70 per day till February 1st, when the rate

became $10.00 per day, which was ‘‘a seasonal jump’’ (R.

41a) ; that he had a record of only one occupant; that he had

a record of telephone calls to Camden, one on January

23rd for $12.15, one on January 27th for $70.65, one on

January 29th for $23.95, one on January 31st for $1.95

(R. 42a-48a).

Basis of Jurisdiction

After the Government had rested, petitioner moved for

a directed verdict which motion was refused. The peti-

tioner thereupon rested without offering any testimony and

submitted certain points requesting the judge to give the

jury binding instructions to render a verdict of not guilty

on each count (R. 71a).

The trial Judge instructed the jury to return a verdict

of not guilty on Count 2 of the indictment. The jury re-

turned a verdict of guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on

Count 3.

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial (R. 74a) and

the said motion was overruled and he was sentenced to a

term of six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of

$1500.00 (R. 76a).

An appeal was taken to the Cireuit Court of Appeals

for the Third Cireuit and the judgment of the District

Court was affirmed (R. 84a).

Il

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Section

240 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Febru-

ary 13, 1925, ce. 229, Section 1, 43 Stat. 938 (28 U.S. CLA.

347).

qn

Questions Presented

Ill

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Was the White Slave Act (the Mann Act) in-

tended to apply to a situation where there is no element of

prostitution or commercialized vice?

2. Should not this Court, in determining the true

meaning of an Act of Congress, give serious consideration

to the clear declarations of the framers of the Act as con-

tained in the account of the legislative proceedings, and

the opinions of the then Attorney General concerning the

scope of the Act?

3. Was there sufficient evidence to submit to the jury

on the question of petitioner’s intent where the uncon-

tradicted and unchallenged testimony of the government’s

principal witness negatives the existence of such intent?

4, Is it not the duty of a trial Judge to direct a verdict

of not guilty where the circumstantial evidence presented

does not exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt?

Reasons Relied Upon

IV

REASONS RELIED UPON FOR THE ALLOWANCE

OF THE WRIT

1. The Mann Act was never intended to apply to a

case of simple fornication, but the Cireuit Court felt bound

to follow the decision of this Court in Caminetti v. United

States, 242 U.S. 470 (1916).

2. The decision in the Caminetti case has never been,

but should be, reviewed by this Court in view of the fact

that

(a) It was a decision by a Court divided five

to three;

(b) The majority opinion is based upon an er-

roneous theory of statutory construction which has

long since been discarded by this Court.

3. There was insufficient evidence to submit to the

jury.

4. There is a conflict in the decisions of this Cireuit

on the question of the duty of a trial Judge in determining

whether a case involving circumstantial evidence should be

submitted to the jury. The decision in the present case is

in conflict with other recent decisions of this Cireuit and

the majority of the other Circuits.

Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully prays that a

writ of certiorari be issued out of and under the seal of

this Honorable Court, directed to the United States Circuit

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit commanding that

Court to certify and to send to this Court for its review

regs «i

acc i) é . F este

Reasons Relied Upon

and determination, on a day certain to be therein named, a

full and complete transcript of the record and all proceed-

ings herein; and that the judgment of the Cireuit Court

of Appeals for the Third Cireuit be reversed by this Hon-

orable Court, and your petitioner have such other and fur-

ther relief in the premises as to this Honorable Court may

seem meet and just.

Wit A, Gray,

Counsel for Petitioner.