Case ID: f2d_210/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. PARNES et al.
    No. 94, Docket 22840.
    United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
    Argued Jan. 15, 1954.
    Decided Feb. 3, 1954.
    
      Edward Y. Broderick, New York City (Joseph H. Broderick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of N. Y., New York City (William Esbitt, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
    Before FRANK, MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Of course, the fact that a conspiracy succeeded does not bar conviction for the crime of conspiracy. The evidence amply supported the verdict. Proof that no export license had issued at New York, whence the gold was exported, justified an inference, not rebutted by Parnés, that no license did issue. The furtive conduct of Parnés and the co-conspirators made it reasonable to infer that they knew that there had been no compliance with the conditions of lawful exportation, and accordingly that it was illegal.

We assume, arguendo, that, over objection, the reception of Davidowitz’ testimony, as proof of another crime, would have been error. However, defense counsel not only failed to object to Davidowitz’ testimony on direct, but cross-examined Davidowitz at length. Only then did defense counsel move to strike this testimony. In these circumstances, the trial judge committed no error in refusing to grant that motion. See Marx v. United States, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 245, 251; Metcalf v. United States, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 213, 216-217.

Affirmed.