|
|
GORIN v. UNITED STATES
111 F.2d 712 (1940)
GORIN
v.
UNITED STATES.
SALICH
v.
SAME.
Nos. 9135, 9136.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 22, 1940.
Isaac Pacht and Clore Warne, both of Los Angeles, Cal., and Donald R. Richberg, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Gorin.
Willard J. Stone, Jr., of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Salich.
Ben Harrison, U. S. Atty., and Harold Raymond Shire and Norman W. Neukom, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
HANEY, Circuit Judge. Appellants challenge judgments and sentences rendered against them after conviction on three counts of an indictment. The first count charged violation of § 1 of the Act of June 15, 1917, Ch. 30, 40 Stat. 217, 50 U.S.C.A. § 31; the second count charged violation of § 2 of that act, 50 U.S.C. A. § 32; and the third count charged violation of § 4 of that act, 50 U.S.C.A. § 34. Generally speaking, these offenses relate to espionage. One branch of the Navy service is the Naval Intelligence Office. Headquarters for the Eleventh Naval District are at San Diego, the intelligence office there being in charge of a District Intelligence Officer. A branch office is located at San Pedro and is in charge of an Assistant District Intelligence Officer. The investigators employed at the San Pedro office make their reports orally or in writing. The Assistant District Intelligence Officer then digests and evaluates the information and dictates the report to the Chief Yeoman — a secretarial employee. The latter, in writing the report on the typewriter, makes an original, three yellow copies and one green copy. These reports are numbered consecutively. One yellow copy and one green copy are retained in the San Pedro office and the remaining copies are sent to the San Diego office. Appellant Salich was born in Moscow, Russia, on May 24, 1905, and lived there until 1917, when he moved with his parents to Kazen, which is about 700 miles east of Moscow. He then went to Manchuria in 1920, to Yokohama, Japan, 1921, and to the United States in 1923. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States, and was employed by the Berkeley Police Department as an active officer from July 1, 1930 until August 15, 1936. In 1935, Salich met one Aliavdin, Vice Consul for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereafter called the Soviet Union) in San Francisco, and thereafter saw him a number of times. In 1936, Salich made an application for a position with the United States Naval Intelligence Office. A letter from San Diego, dated August 10, 1936, advised Salich of his appointment, and he reported for work in San Pedro on August 19, 1936. At that time one Davis was District Intelligence Officer and one Roachefort was Assistant District Intelligence Officer. Salich thereafter saw Aliavdin in Los Angeles. Aliavdin knew that he was working for the Naval Intelligence Office. Salich was an investigator and reported the results of his investigations to the Assistant
District Intelligence Officer. He was expected to read the yellow copies of the reports which were kept in the Chief Yeoman's desk, in order to be familiar with the progress of investigations. Appellant Gorin and his wife are citizens of the Soviet Union, and arrived in this country on January 10, 1936, under a passport issued by the Soviet Union. He then testified before a Board of Special Inquiry that he was to be employed in the Entourist Department of the Amtorg Trading Corporation, his salary to be paid by the Russian government through such corporation. His work was the organization of tourist parties from America to the Soviet Union. He was stationed at Los Angeles. Roachefort instructed Salich to contact someone in the Soviet Consulate regarding the activities of a Soviet official named Kaganovich in July or August 1937. Salich eventually contacted Gorin and had a conversation with him. Later during that year Gorin called at Salich's home, in the latter's absence, and told Salich's wife that he had a letter for Salich. A day or so afterward, Salich called at Gorin's home, found him busy, but saw him two or three days later, when he received the letter, written by Aliavdin introducing Gorin to Salich. At this meeting Gorin mentioned his interest in matters pertaining to Japanese activities and Japanese activities only. Salich told Gorin that he did not believe that he had any information which would be of benefit to anyone. Salich reported the conversation to Roachefort. There was testimony that Roachefort ordered Salich to refrain from contacting Gorin. Salich testified that Roachefort told him to give Gorin such information as could be found in newspapers and periodicals, and try to obtain information from Gorin concerning the Japanese consulate. At any rate, after subsequent meetings and in March, 1938, Salich agreed to supply Gorin with certain information, on the theory that whatever information concerning the Japanese he gave to Gorin, it would benefit the United States as against the "common" enemy.
1. Ken Magazine, July 27, 1939, p. 9. 2. Ken Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 40, April 7, 1938; Ken Magazine, April 6, 1939. 3. See also: 34 U.S.C.A. § 1200, Article 4 "Fourth" and Article 5. 4. See also: Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277, 35 S.Ct. 383, 59 L.Ed. 573; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095. 5. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U.S. 86, 109, 29 S.Ct. 220, 53 L.Ed. 417. 6. Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 376, 33 S.Ct. 780, 781, 57 L.Ed. 1232. 7. Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 431, 36 S.Ct. 147, 149, 60 L.Ed. 364. 8. Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 38 S.Ct. 323, 62 L.Ed. 763. 9. Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501, 45 S.Ct. 141, 69 L.Ed. 402. 10. United States v. Shreveport Grain & El. Co., 287 U.S. 77, 53 S.Ct. 42, 43, 77 L.Ed. 175. 11. Neblett v. Carpenter, 305 U.S. 297, 303, 59 S.Ct. 170, 173, 83 L.Ed. 182. 12. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 34 S.Ct. 853, 855, 58 L.Ed. 1284; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510. 13. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 299, 65 L.Ed. 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045. 14. Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322. 15. Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445, 456, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146. 16. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888. 17. Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 209, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281. 18. Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 56 S.Ct. 190, 80 L.Ed. 221; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Gamer, 303 U.S. 161, 170, 171, 58 S.Ct. 500, 82 L.Ed. 726, 114 A.L.R. 1218; Department of Water and Power v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 577, 583. 19. Appellants rely on: United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354, 46 S.Ct. 513, 70 L.Ed. 986; United States v. Dietrich, C.C.Neb., 126 F. 664; United States v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., C.C.N.Y., 146 F. 298.
|
|