The opinion of the court was delivered by: Juergens, District Judge.
An inspector of the Interstate Commerce Commission stopped
defendant's tractor-trailer unit on Illinois Route 3 about ¾ mile
north of Monsanto Chemical Company plant, after the vehicle had
been loaded with 33,210 pounds of paranitroanaline solid, a
dangerous poison, a product of Monsanto. The truck was not
placarded with warning signs as required by valid regulation of
the Interstate Commerce Commission (49 C.F.R. § 77.823).
A jury, on June 13, 1955, found the defendant guilty on Counts
1 and 2 of the information. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the
Seventh Circuit (235 F.2d 785) reversed and remanded for a new
trial because of an erroneous instruction.
A second trial to a jury was had on July 8, 9, and 10, 1957,
resulting in a verdict of guilty as to Count 1 only.
The defendant in its motion sets forth 11 reasons why a new
trial should be granted.
In its Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for new trial
(1) The United States failed to make a case against the
(2) The instructions given to the jury at the request of the
government erroneously declared the law; and
(3) Failure to give the complete instruction requested by
defendant constituted error.
As to (1), namely, that the United States failed to make a case
against the defendant, it says that the Government must prove the
three essential elements of the crime charged, that is:
1) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the
load which it was transporting;
2) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the regulation it
is accused of violating; and
3) That the defendant had a specific intent to violate the
If the government has proved 1) and 2), then 3) will follow as
a natural consequence. If the defendant had actual knowledge of
the nature of the load it was transporting and also had actual
knowledge of the regulation it is accused of violating and then
proceeded to violate the regulation, it knowingly did what it was
not supposed to do and, therefore, intended to do what it was not
supposed to do and, therefore, had a specific intent to violate
The defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the load
which it was transporting because its driver Hart saw the labels
(Government's Exhibit 2) carrying the words, in large red
letters, "Warning — Poison" and having the standard skull and
crossbones insignia ...