The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH
The defendants, Sigal and Rabinovitz, were convicted after a jury trial of (1) willfully attempting to evade and defeat the excise tax on wagers for the month of November, 1961, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201; (2) two counts of willful failure to pay the special tax imposed on persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers and in receiving wagers for or on behalf of a person or persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203; (3) two counts of failure of such persons to register with the District Director of Internal Revenue, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7272 (1962 Supp.); and (4) two counts charging such persons being so engaged and liable to pay the special tax without having paid said tax, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7262.
The defendants filed a timely motion for judgment of acquittal and in the alternative for a new trial.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
The grounds set forth in this motion are:
'1. The Court erred in refusing defendants' Motion for Suppression of the Evidence.
'2. The Court erred in failing to grant defendants' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
'4. The Court erred in its numerous rulings on the evidence with reference to admission of certain exhibits and restriction of cross-examination of Government's witnesses.'
In my opinion the motion should be denied.
The first, third, and fourth grounds are repeated in the Motion for a New Trial and will be considered under that heading.
Since the jury has brought in verdicts of guilty, the evidence is to be viewed together with all inferences reasonably and logically deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680; United States v. Minker, 312 F.2d 632, 635 (3d Cir. 1962); United States v. Giuliano, 263 F.2d 582, 584 (3d Cir. 1959).
In so viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences, I think the defendants were properly convicted.
The Government produced abundant direct and circumstantial evidence to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that a group of persons including the defendants were associated together as members of a partnership
engaged in the business of accepting and receiving wagers; (2) that this business in the form of a numbers operation was conducted in the Hill District of Pittsburgh; (3) that the business had a headquarters at Whitey's Restaurant where numbers slips and wagered money were turned in and payments made, and had a station at 1808 Locust Street where the numbers slips were tabulated.
There was evidence that Rabinovitz and Sigal wrote some numbers and accepted wagers during both indictment periods. It was undisputed that both had failed to register or pay ...