From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hall

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 19, 1966
364 F.2d 501 (4th Cir. 1966)

Summary

In Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.2d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004), the court explained that "the function of Burnett is to ensure that there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review."

Summary of this case from Warren v. Colvin

Opinion

No. 9880.

Argued May 4, 1965.

Decided July 19, 1966.

C. Berkley Lilly, Beckley, W. Va., for appellant.

Jay M. Vogelson, Sp. Asst. to the U.S. Atty. (George D. Beter, Acting U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.


This is an action for the remission of a forfeiture of a pickup truck which had been used for the transportation of sugar, cracked corn and other materials for use in the manufacture of illegal whisky. The contraband had been transported from the claimant's home to a secluded point near a still concealed in woodlands. The claimant testified that his brother and another, both of whom were subsequently arrested at the still site, had placed the materials in the truck without his knowledge, and that he had no inkling of the purpose of the trip, which he made at their request, until the materials were unloaded at their destination.

The brothers lived next door to each other and the claimant, Chris Hall, testified that his brother could not drive an automobile, and that he and his wife frequently drove his brother and his wife on necessary missions. The claimant also knew that his brother, Robert, had once been convicted for selling illegal whisky.

The claimant testified that he was awakened in the early morning hours by his brother who requested him to drive Robert and another to Odd Mountain. Chris Hall testified that, unquestioningly, he dressed, drove Robert and the other to Odd Mountain without inquiry of their purpose or destination and without knowing that, as he had dressed, his truck had been loaded with contraband.

One of the arresting agents testified that Chris Hall, immediately after his arrest, said that his brother and his companion had filled his truck with gasoline the day before and had then arranged the trip with him, and that Chris Hall had said that he "had a pretty good idea of what they were doing with these supplies."

In light of the agent's testimony, the circumstantial evidence affords an abundant basis for the finding that Chris Hall knew the purpose of the trip and intentionally transported the contraband. It follows that the forfeiture was appropriate, as was the denial of remission.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Hall

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 19, 1966
364 F.2d 501 (4th Cir. 1966)

In Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.2d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004), the court explained that "the function of Burnett is to ensure that there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review."

Summary of this case from Warren v. Colvin
Case details for

United States v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Chris HALL, Intervening Claimant…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 19, 1966

Citations

364 F.2d 501 (4th Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Warren v. Colvin

(R. 319). Dr. Kenneth Molinero, an orthopedist, also examined plaintiff and found left-sided deficiencies.…

United States v. $125,882 in U.S. Currency

Where, as here, the elimination of a segment of the statute substantially changes its reach and drastically…