Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantverdicttestimonydirect evidencepiracy
verdictdiscriminationappellantgrand jurypiracy

Related Cases

United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588
View Case »
Gray v. United States, 155 A.3d 377
View Case »
Langlois v. Deja Vu, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 1327
View Case »
In re Tsoutsouris, 748 N.E.2d 856
View Case »
Loving v. I.R.S., 742 F.3d 1013, 408 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 113 A.F.T.R.2d 2014-867, 2014-1 USTC P 50,175
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 101 Pa.Super. 455, 1930 WL 3809

Facts

Edmund B. Jermyn, the mayor of Scranton, was indicted for conspiring to establish gambling devices in the city. The indictment stemmed from an investigation initiated by the police superintendent regarding seized slot machines. Testimony revealed that Jermyn conspired with city officials to allow slot machines to operate, receiving payments for protection from police raids. Despite evidence of a conspiracy, Jermyn denied any involvement, claiming he was unaware of any agreements regarding the slot machines.

The indictment, found January 8, 1930, charged Edmund B. Jermyn, James Arigoni, James W. Henshaw, Harry J. Friend, Edward G. Miller, and other persons unknown to the grand jury, with conspiring to set up and establish in the City of Scranton, gambling devices–slot machines–in violation of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act of March 13, 1860, P. L. 322, and its supplements.

Issue

Did the evidence support the conviction of Edmund B. Jermyn for conspiracy to operate gambling devices in violation of Pennsylvania law?

The specifications of error are very numerous, but a careful examination of them has convinced us that the alleged errors complained of are properly embraced under the following three general heads: (1) The evidence adduced by the Commonwealth was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty as against appellant; (2) the court below erred in admitting certain evidence offered by the Commonwealth and in refusing to admit certain evidence offered by appellant; (3) the charge was erroneous and prejudicial to appellant.

Rule

A conspiracy may be inferred from the actions and conduct of the parties involved, and the existence of a common design can be established without direct evidence of an agreement.

Where the acts of parties show that they are evidently acting in concert, in pursuance of a common design and for the accomplishment of a common purpose, the jury may be permitted to infer that such concerted action is the result of an agreement between the parties so acting.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, which included testimonies from various witnesses indicating that Jermyn had control over police actions regarding slot machines. The jury was permitted to infer that Jermyn's actions, in conjunction with those of his co-defendants, constituted a conspiracy to protect the operation of slot machines in Scranton. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion of Jermyn's involvement in the conspiracy.

The evidence that there existed in the City of Scranton in the Jermyn administration a conspiracy whose purpose was to operate slot machines is overwhelming. That the operations under the conspiracy resulted in a discrimination in favor of Miller's machines is convincing.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction of Edmund B. Jermyn, concluding that the evidence was adequate to support the jury's verdict of guilty.

We agree with the court below that the evidence furnishes no justification for judicial interference with the verdict.

Who won?

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prevailed, as the court upheld the conviction based on sufficient evidence of conspiracy.

The Commonwealth's contention was that appellant, while he was mayor, conspired with Arigoni, Henshaw, Friend and others, to permit and assist Miller to maintain and operate in the City of Scranton a number of slot machines for gambling purposes.

You must be