Case Name: Otto KUHN, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee; William Clyde DEMING, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1969-09-11
Citations: 415 F.2d 111
Docket Number: Nos. 19030, 19101
Parties: Otto KUHN, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee; William Clyde DEMING, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 111–113

Head Matter:
Otto KUHN, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee; William Clyde DEMING, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nos. 19030, 19101.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 11, 1969.
Arthur L. Brooks, Jr. (Court-appointed), Lexington, Ky., for appellant Kuhn.
William J. Dammarell, B. H. Berg, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant Deming.
Philip R. Michael and Robert D. Gary, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Will Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward T. Joyce, Robert D. Gary, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS and CELEBREZ-ZE, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
Kuhn and Deming appeal from, their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1952 on five counts of use of interstate telephone facilities for carrying on a business enterprise of gambling in viola tion of state law and one count of conspiracy so to carry on that business. They were found guilty on all counts.
All claims of error raised by appellant Deming have been dealt with in Deming v. United States, 415 F.2d 99. They will not be discussed further.
Appellant Kuhn raises the same issue under Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, as did Deming. We find no error with respect to the search warrant.
Kuhn also alleges that the District Court erred in permitting Special Agent Carrington, who testified as to the conduct of the gambling operation, to put dates on certain bet slips which were introduced into evidence. Appellant's theory is that this was done without introducing the documents from which Carrington determined the dates. However, while the chartbooks were not introduced, the racing forms which are the original form in which the information is published were introduced into evidence. Thus Kuhn had the opportunity to test the accuracy of Carrington's testimony by comparison to the documents on the basis of which he dated the bet slips. There was no error in permitting the dating of the bet slips.
Affirmed.