Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SAM VAGLICA, STEVE GUGGINO, HENRY TRAFFICANTE, BERTHOLD JOHN HAAS AND ISABEL MARGARET SEELEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

PER CURIAM:

In each of these appeals, which we consolidated for oral argument, the Government is challenging a district court's dismissal of an indictment count charging multiple defendants with conspiracy to conduct an illegal gambling enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1955. The district court dismissed the count in each case on the ground that it violated Wharton's Rule. We have reserved our holding in these cases pending the court's disposition of an earlier-argued case involving exactly the same issue. We have now held in United States v. Pacheco, 5th Cir. 1974, 489 F.2d 554, that a two count indictment charging both a substantive violation of and a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1955 does not violate Wharton's Rule. Therefore, we reverse the district court's dismissals and remand for trial. See United States v. Pacheco, supra.

". . . When to the idea of an offense plurality of agents is logically necessary, conspiracy . . . cannot be maintained . . ." 2 Wharton, Criminal Law § 1604, at 1862 (12th ed. 1932).

Reversed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

UNITED STATES v. VAGLICA
(Mar 8, 1974)