Kovach v. United States, 53 F.2d 639 (6th Cir. 1931). · Go Syfert
Search
Kovach v. United States, 53 F.2d 639 (6th Cir. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 35 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stein v. Depke (azd, 2023-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Stein v. Depke
D. Ariz. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kovach v. 8 United States, 53 F.2d 639, 639 (6th Cir. 1931) (cited by Page, 302 F.2d at 83–84 (consent 9 not intelligent when given by non-English speaking immigrant); In re Tashia, 909 10 N.Y.S.2d 345 , 347–48 (Fam.
cited Cited "see" Jose Caba v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wai Lau, 215 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D.N.Y. 1963), judgment aff'd, 329 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1964) (citing Kovach v. United States, 53 F.2d 639, 639 (6th Cir. 1931)).
discussed Cited "see" Nelson v. United States (Two Cases). Nowland v. United States (Two Cases). Lee v. United States. Lowery v. United States. Kirby v. United States. MacWilliams v. United States. (Two Cases). Trent v. United States. Brady v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1953 · signal: see · confidence high
See text infra 8 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64 , 190 F.2d 649 9 89 U.S.App.D.C. at page 65 , 190 F.2d at page 650 10 89 U.S.App.D.C. at pages 65-66, 190 F.2d at pages 650-651 11 Burns v. Lovett, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 208 , 221, 202 F.2d 335, 348 (dissenting opinion), affirmed, Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 , 73 S.Ct. 1045 12 Kovach v. United States, 6 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 639 13 Perlman v. United States, supra, 247 U.S. at page 15 , 38 S.Ct. 420 14 As to the compulsory nature of a subpoena, see United States v. Fleischman, 1950, 339 U.S. 349, 365 , 70 S.Ct. 739 , 94 L.Ed. 906 , and United States v. …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kovach
v.
United States
5897.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Nov 13, 1931.
53 F.2d 639
D. E. Rendinell, of Youngstown, Ohio, for appellant., M. J. Wolpaw, of Cleveland, Ohio (W. J. Mahon, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Denison, Moorman, Hickenlooper.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violating tl(e National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). Before trial, he moved to- suppress certain evidence obtained on a search of his residence by prohibition officers. The officers had no search warrant, but claimed that the search was made with appellant’s consent. Upon this issue, the court found against appellant, and overruled the motion to suppress the evidence. Gatterdam v. United States, 5 F.(2d) 673 (6 C. C. A.). Error is assigned to this ruling.

The finding of the trial court on a question of fact upon which the admissibility of evidence depends has been held to he conclusive “unless clearly shown to be erroneous in matter of law.” Stillwell Mfg. Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 521, 9 S. Ct. 601, 603, 32 L. Ed. 1035. It was said in Gila Ry. Co. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94, 34 S. Ct. 229, 232, 58 L. Ed. 521, that such finding is not “subject to be reversed on appeal or error if it be fairly supported by the evidence.” Cf. Windsor v. United States (C. C. A.) 286 F. 51; Schutte V. United States (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 830; Citizens’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Allen (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 549; Poetter v. United States (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 438; and Waxman v. United States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 775. Where officers making the search of a dwelling' were not acting under a search warrant, the burden is on the government to show that the owner voluntarily consented to the search, and the consent can not he deemed voluntary, unless it be made clearly to appear that it was freely and intelligently given. This burden is of course heavier where it appears that the owner is illiterate or a foreigner who does not readily speak and understand the English language. Wo cannot say that there was not a voluntary consent without duress in this case, even if the facts were reviewable as if in equity. But since the trial court may not have considered the evidence in the light of the burden carried by the government as indicated, the cause is remanded to the District Court with authority to grant a motion for a new trial, if, in its judgment, the government’s proofs did not fully meet the burden requirements. Upon the filing in this court of a certified copy of an order of the lower court ruling on any sueh motion that' may he made, appropriate action will he taken to give it effect, either by a dismissal of the appeal or an affirmance of the judgment.