Opinion ID: 1542243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: and X. Indictment and the Jury.

Text: The first of these contentions is that there was error in not reading the indictment to the jury at the opening of the trial. The second is that there was error in giving the indictment to the jury, at the close of the trial, because the Act was referred to therein as the anti-racketeering act. As to the first contention, it is enough to say that it was not necessary to read the indictment at the opening of the trial. Counsel for all parties made full opening statements covering the issues in the case. In addition, no word of objection or of exception to the omission to read the indictment appears in this record. The second contention is frivolous. The Act is popularly known as the anti-racketeering act. It was passed primarily to prevent and punish racketeering. To tell the jury that the Act was what it was had no possible harmful connection with the fact of the guilt or innocence of one on trial for violation of it.