Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALES CASTRO et al., Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-01-05
Citations: 228 F.2d 807
Docket Number: No. 63, Docket 23654
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALES CASTRO et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 228
Pages: 807–810

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALES CASTRO et al., Appellants.
No. 63, Docket 23654.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 18, 1955.
Decided Jan. 5, 1956.
Conrad J. Lynn, New York City, for appellants.
Thomas M. Debevoise II, Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, for the United States.
Before HAND, FRANK and MEDINA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The principal error charged on this appeal is that the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution was so in-paired upon the trial, that no reasonable jury could have been satisfied beyond a reasonable .doubt of the accuseds' guilt. This assumes that in a criminal prosecution the judge may not submit -the. case to the jury unless he is himself satisfied, not only that there is testimony from which the accused's guilt may be inferred, but also that reasonable persons might be so satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. This theory is based on the postulate that the accused is entitled to a protection greater than that the jury must be told that they must not have any fair doubt of the guilt of the accused, and that there is this preliminary question for the judge to answer. Whether that is the doctrine in all the circuits we need not inquire, for it is the thoroughly established doctrine in this circuit that the only difference between a civil action and a criminal prosecution is in. the instruction that must be given to the jury that they must be convinced beyond all fair doubt
The objection that the jurors were examined on the voir dire by means of the Attorney General's list of "subversive" organizations we passed upon in United States v. Lebron, 2 Cir., 222 F.2d 531.
The charge was amply sufficient to inform the jury that the guilt of each defendant must be established independently of that of any other.
Judgment affirmed.
Becher v. United States, 2 Cir., 5 F.2d 45; United States v. Becker, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 1007, 1010; United States v. Valenti, 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 362, 364; Wigmore § 2497.