BORUM ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Three defendants were acquitted of murder in the first degree under the first three counts of an indictment but convicted under a fourth count charging one unknown defendant held the murder weapon, and the Supreme Court held that the conviction based on the fourth count could be sustained despite the acquittals on the specific charges that identified each defendant as the shooter. The Court's decision established that a general verdict of guilt on an alternative charge does not necessarily conflict with acquittals on more specific charges when the evidence supporting the general charge is distinguishable from the evidence regarding the individual defendants' identities.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Reporter’s statement: The certificate set forth an indictment in four counts charging the three defendants with murder in the first degree. The first count named one of the defendants, the second another, and the third the last as having held the pistol with which the crime was committed. The fourth count alleged that the weapon was held by one of the defendants but that his name was to the grand jurors unknown, The certificate also set out a part of the instructions of the trial judge, and showed that all three defendants were found not guilty under the first three counts but guilty under the fourth, and were sentenced to death.
The question certified was:
“ Can the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, based upon the conviction of the defendants on the fourth count of the indiótment, be sustained in view of the acquittal of each and all of the defendants of the charge of murder in the first degree as contained in the first three.counts of the indictment? ”
Per Curiam:
Question answered “ Yes.” Dunn v. United States, ante, p. 390. Solicitor General Thacher and Messrs. Erwin N. Gris-wold, Leo A. Rover, U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Wm. H. Collins, Assistant U. S. Attorney, were on the brief for the United States.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991)…ugh both shooting and drowning. In holding that “the Government was not required to make the charge in the alternative,” id., at 504, we explained that it was immaterial whether death was caused by one means or the other. Cf. Borum v. United States, 284 U. S. 596 (1932) (upholding the murder conviction of three codefendants under a count that failed to specify which of the three did the actual killing); St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 145 (1894). This fundamental proposition is embodied in Federal…
-
Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 147 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1944)…e-fixing, and a verdict of not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to restrain trade by the same means, would not vitiate the charge or the verdict. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356, 80 A.L.R. 161; Borum v. United States, 284 U.S. 596, 52 S.Ct. 205, 76 L.Ed. 513; Morgan v. United States, 8 Cir., 98 F. 2d 473. See also, United States v. General Motors Corp., 7 Cir., 121 F. 2d 376, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 618, 62 S.Ct. 105, 86 L.Ed. 497. It is to be observed also that the jury…
-
Collazo v. United States, 196 F.2d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1952)…z v. United States, 1894, 153 U.S. 308, 311-312, 14 S.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725, 726; Harris v. United States, 1930, 59 App.D.C. 353, 41 F. 2d 976. . 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 977 et seq. (3d ed. 1940); 3 id. § 1000 et seq. . Borum v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 596, 52 S.Ct. 205, 76 L.Ed. 513; Dunn v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence