How have the courts interpreted Section 894 of the Criminal Code in the context of an allegation that a defendant committed a criminal offence by sealing currency and receiving stolen currency?
The following excerpt is from United States v. DeStafano, 429 F.2d 344 (2nd Cir. 1970):
--------
Notes:
* Of the Southern District of New York sitting by designation.
1 Appellant's brief, p. 9 (emphasis is in original).
2 We do not regard as weighty appellant's claim that 894 violates his freedom of speech.
3 Appellant points out that he requested, but was denied, a jury instruction which would have required the jury to find when the loan was made.
4 Compare Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961), which involved crimes held to be factually inconsistent for the same defendant (sealing currency and receiving the stolen currency).
Notes:
* Of the Southern District of New York sitting by designation.
1 Appellant's brief, p. 9 (emphasis is in original).
2 We do not regard as weighty appellant's claim that 894 violates his freedom of speech.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
