United States v. Hammond, A/K/A “Big John”

821 F.2d 473 (1987)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Hammond, A/K/A “Big John”

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
821 F.2d 473 (1987)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

From August 1983 through January 1984, John William Hammond (defendant) operated an illegal bookmaking business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Hammond hired three employees to assist in operations. One employee, James Rebeck, received telephone calls from bettors and then recorded the bettors’ code names and sometimes their contact information. Rebeck used rice paper to record this information because rice paper dissolves quickly in water. Rebeck would later receive calls from either Hammond or either of the two other employees, Steven Chiarella and William Klabunder, to relay the information to them. Chiarella and Klabunder would call the bettors and record their wagers, also using rice paper. Periodically, Hammond would call to ask about the bets. After those communications, the sheets of rice paper would be destroyed. A fifth person, Sandra Crawford, was involved to a limited extent. Crawford agreed to allow Rebeck to use the telephone at her residence to receive incoming calls from bettors, knowing that the telephone was being used in connection with the bookmaking business. Crawford was paid for the use of her telephone. Crawford also supplied the rice paper for Rebeck. Occasionally, Crawford also answered the telephone, recorded the information from the bettors, and then relayed this information to the others. Hammond was charged by the federal government with one count of conducting a gambling business involving five or more persons in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and four counts of aiding and abetting the interstate transmission of wagering information. Hammond appealed his conviction, arguing that the federal antigambling statute did not apply because there were fewer than five persons involved in the conduct of the business and § 1955 required a minimum of five persons. Hammond argued that Crawford was not involved in the conduct of the business, because she was not necessary for the operation of the business and played a merely passive role.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lay C.J.)

Concurrence (Bright, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership