There was no error in government counsel asking a payroll clerk why defendant received two checks at the end of a single pay period and what such checks represented.
Evidence as to how Anthony Argo and Charles Piasecki -- the other two committeeman -- were paid was admissible to show the modus operandi, to show a course of action, negative accident and mistake. See and cf. United States v. Laurelli, D.C.M.D.Pa.1960, 187 F.Supp. 30, at page 33.
In our charge we read § 186(b) and stated the purposes of the legislation as indicated in United States v. Ryan, supra, 225 F.2d at page 426; 232 F.2d at page 483; 350 U.S. at pages 305-306, 76 S. Ct. at pages 404-405; Arroyo v. United States, supra, 256 F.2d at pages 551-552; United States v. Pecora, supra, 267 F.2d 512. See United States v. Hood, 1952, 343 U.S. 148, 151, 72 S. Ct. 568, 96 L. Ed. 846; Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 1952, 342 U.S. 337, 340, 72 S. Ct. 329, 330, 96 L. Ed. 367, 'A criminal statute must be sufficiently definite to give notice of the required conduct to one who would avoid its penalties, and to guide the judge in its application and the lawyer in defending one charged with its violation. But few words possess the precision of mathematical symbols, most statutes must deal with untold and unforeseen variations in factual situations, and the practical necessities of discharging the business of government inevitably limit the specificity with which legislators can spell out prohibitions. Consequently, no more than a reasonable degree of certainty can be demanded. Nor is it unfair to require that one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line.'
As to Bianchi v. United States, 8 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 182, at page 190, see and cf. United States v. Ryan, supra, 232 F.2d at page 483; Arroyo v. United States, supra, 256 F.2d at page 551; Rosenberg v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 273, 294, 73 S. Ct. 1152, 1163, 97 L. Ed. 1607, 'Where Congress by more than one statute proscribes a private course of conduct, the Government may choose to invoke either applicable law.'
We made it abundantly clear, N.T. 610, 628, 629, that the burden of proof was upon the government and that it never shifted throughout the trial. While defendant had the burden of coming forward to prove that the payments used came within the exception in § 186(c) in the end the burden of proving guilt remained that of the government. See discussion at page 628, supra, and see McKelvey v. United States, supra, 260 U.S. 353, 43 S. Ct. 132, 67 L. Ed. 301; IX Wigmore, op. cit. supra, §§ 2511, 2512(a), and cf. § 2497.
Reviewing the whole trial, placing each episode in its proper setting -- see United States v. Kafes, 3 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 887; United States v. Stoehr, supra, 100 F.Supp. at page 164 -- the record leaves no doubt that the case was fairly tried and submitted to the jury in a clear, impartial and thorough charge as to both the facts and the law.
Defendant's motion in arrest of judgment, for judgment of acquittal and new trial will therefore be denied in an order filed herewith.