Journalist Tool

Kineticist

  • HDashboard
  • IItems
  • ↓Ingest
  • SSources
  • KBeats
  • BBriefs
  • RIntel
  • QSearch
  • NName Review
  • +Health

v0.1.0

← Back to items

Episode 386 - The Trial of the Bounty

For Amusement Only EM and Bingo Pinball Podcast·podcast_episode·16m 49s·held·Dec 29, 2016
View original

Analysis

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 · $0.018

TL;DR

Dramatic recreation of a 1964 federal trial determining pinball machine legality

Summary

This episode presents a fictional courtroom drama depicting a 1964 federal trial regarding whether a Bally Bounty pinball machine should be classified as a gambling device and confiscated under U.S. Code Sections 1171-1177. The case examines the distinction between free-play pinball machines (legal in Maryland) and gambling devices, ultimately ruling in favor of the machine's legality based on Maryland state law exemptions for pinball machines that do not directly pay out cash.

Key Claims

  • The Bally Bounty machine was transported from Chicago to Baltimore in March 1964 and seized on March 11, 1964

    high confidence · Court testimony describing the facts of the case

  • Maryland law explicitly exempts free-play pinball machines from slot machine prohibitions, as long as they do not provide cash payouts

    high confidence · Defense argument citing Maryland Code Section 19 of Article 56 and Chapter 617 of the Laws of Maryland 1963

  • The Bally Bounty could technically be modified to pay cash directly but was not configured to do so from the factory

    high confidence · Expert witness Graham Smith testimony

  • Bally had postponed domestic sale of the Bounty pending the conclusion of this court case

    high confidence · Nicholas Baldridge commentary on marketing information

  • The jury found under federal statute that the machine user could become entitled to receive money or property

    high confidence · Defense counsel statement during court proceedings

Notable Quotes

  • “The respondent was a highly sophisticated pinball machine and was transported in interstate from Chicago to Baltimore in March 1964 and was seized on March the 11th in 1964.”

    [name withheld pending review] @ early in case presentation — Establishes the factual basis of the case and the machine in question

  • “It is clear therefore that the respondent may be registered in the city of Baltimore in Maryland. Interpreting Section 19 of Article 56 of Maryland Code annotated in Chapter 617 of the Laws of Maryland 1963, it becomes apparent that any machine that can be licensed under Section 19 of Article 56 is not outlawed by Chapter 617.”

    [name withheld pending review] @ defense argument phase — Core legal argument that pinball machines with free play only are explicitly permitted under Maryland law

  • “I find that become entitled to receive as used in this section means become entitled to receive from the machine and not become entitled to receive as a result of playing the machine as used in section 1171 of title 15 of the United States Code.”

    [name withheld pending review] @ judicial ruling — Key distinction distinguishing federal vs. state law interpretation—machines that don't directly pay are exempt

  • “The bounty, with its many features and gameplay, was anything but a gambling device. It was a pinball machine.”

    Nicholas Baldridge @ episode conclusion — Thematic summary of the episode's conclusion about the distinction between pinball and gambling

  • “Some sites prefer paying tokens. Others don't pay at all. Every location's a little different. And so it wouldn't make sense to have them all modified to pay off.”

    Graham Smith (expert witness) @ expert testimony — Illustrates operator flexibility and real-world practices in configuring machines

Entities

Nicholas BaldridgepersonGraham SmithpersonRyan ClaytorpersonBallycompanyState Sales and Service CorporationcompanyCoinop Amusements Inc.companyBally BountygameFor Amusement OnlyorganizationBaltimoreorganizationMarylandorganization

Signals

  • ?

    historical_signal: Detailed recreation of a 1964 federal court case establishing legal distinction between gambling devices and free-play pinball machines in Maryland jurisdiction

    high · Entire episode presentation of United States v. State Sales and Service Corporation case with specific U.S. Code citations and Maryland statutes

  • ?

    regulatory_signal: Historical documentation of how Maryland law explicitly carved out exemption for free-play pinball machines (no direct cash payout) from slot machine prohibition

    high · Maryland Code Section 19 of Article 56 and Chapter 617 of Laws of Maryland 1963 discussed extensively in defense arguments

  • ?

    product_strategy: Bally strategically postponed domestic sales of the Bounty machine pending resolution of the gambling device classification case

    high · Host commentary: 'Bally had postponed domestic sale of the machine pending the conclusion of this case'

  • ?

    design_innovation: Bally Bounty featured advanced mechanics for its era including magic screen with changeable bingo card layout and skill shot capability

    high · Expert witness testimony describing 'magic screen that can change the layout of the bingo card' and 'skill shot feature'

  • ?

    operational_signal: Operators had flexibility in configuring free-play machines—some sites prefer token payouts, others prefer no direct payout, creating differentiated venue experiences

    high · Graham Smith testimony: 'Some sites prefer paying tokens. Others don't pay at all. Every location's a little different.'

Transcript

groq_whisper · $0.050

0:00
What's that sound? It's For Amusement Only, the EM and Bingo Pinball Podcast. In my years as a district judge, one case stands out in my mind. The defendant, such as it was, was a pinball machine. The jury had to rule whether this machine was a gambling device and whether it should be confiscated, as such in the city of Baltimore.
0:37
This matter comes before the court and a jury upon a libel filed by the United States of America under 15 U.S.C. Section 1171, 1172, and 1177 on November 5th, 1964, and upon the answer to the libel filed for and on behalf of the claimant, State Sales and Service Corporation, a Maryland corporation, with its principal place of business at 1825 Guilford Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. According to the United States Code Chapter 15, Sections 1171, 1172, and 1177, a gambling device is any other machine or mechanical device designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling The following is the application of an element of chance, any money or property. Further section 1172 reads, It shall be unlawful to knowingly transport any gambling device to any place in a state from any place outside of such state, provided further, that it shall not be unlawful to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any gambling device into Any state in which the transported gambling device is specifically enumerated as lawful in a statute of that state.
1:55
Section 1177 reads, quote, Any gambling device transported, delivered, shipped,manufactured,reconditioned,repaired,sold,disposed of,received,possessed,or used in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be seized and forfeited to the United States. The respondent was a highly sophisticated pinball machine and was transported in interstate from Chicago to Baltimore in March 1964 and was seized on March the 11th in 1964. The trial of the case was conducted in two parts. First, the court propounded the following question to a jury. Members of the jury was the coin operated pinballmachine number B799 designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling and by the operation of which a person may become entitled to receive as a result of the application of an element of chance any money or property?
  • ?

    content_signal: Podcast episode presented historical legal case as audio drama for educational and entertainment purposes around New Year's 2017

    high · Host commentary: 'I thought this would be silly, kind of fun, kind of educational thing around New Year's'

    • 3:04
    It was, your honor. You may continue. Then it becomes incumbent upon the court to determine whether such a quote gambling device end quote is specifically enumerated as lawful in a statute of the state into which it was sent as forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 1172 and thus free it from possible confiscation under the United States Code. The respondent machine is similar to the one described in the United States v. Two Coin-operated Pinball Machines and B-1378-241F Supply 5-7, 1965 WDKY. The Court adopts a statement of fact as set forth by the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the extent that it corresponds with the testimony before this Court. The respondent is a coin electrically operated machine The machine when assembled and ready for use consists of a vertical section attached to a base section to which are secured four legs The base section contains a plunger device a number of holes drilled into an inclined playboard and a quantity of posts with rubber bumpers placed at intervals thereon The device is equipped with eight metal balls, five of which are released for play upon insertion of a coin. The vertical section has a glass front upon which the results of play are recorded by electronically operated equipment. The object of play of the device is to propel these balls, by means of the plunger, onto the inclined playboard so that the ball will fall into certain holes and thereby light corresponding light bulbs located on the vertical section of the machine. When three or more bulbs are lit in a row or in some other predetermined order, the machine registers free plays. The machine is so constructed that any number of coins may be inserted therein before actual play of the game begins. The number of free plays to be awarded for successful operation of the device can be increased by insertion of additional coins prior to play of the machine, although the rate of increase of free play awards cannot be controlled by the player and may or may not increase upon the insertion of a particular coin. The machine also provides other features, the most prominent of which is denoted skill shot, which will award a designated number of free plays if the first ball played falls into any of several pre-designated holes. After striking the ball with the plunger, the ball is propelled onto the playboard and descends the inclined plane dependent mainly upon the law of gravity and chance contacts with the posts affixed to the board. The player has nearly no control over this descent and only negligible, if any, skill is involved in the operation or play of the device. Free plays won on the machine are recorded on a three-digit counting meter, a replay register. The register is numbered so that it will apparently record 999 free games but a stop is contained in the device so that in fact the register will record only 899 free games. Free games so recorded may be used by depressing appropriate buttons to activate the machine, to activate the mechanism which controls the increase of the free game awards, or to activate other features of the machine. Each such use decreases the number shown on the replay register by one. The replay register can be immediately cleared by operation of an on-off switch located on the base section of the device or by disconnecting the device from its power source and then reconnecting it. Inside the base section are located two additional meters referred to as the total plays meter and the replays meter. The replay meter records the total number of free plays which have been won on the play of the machine. Subtracting the total registered on the replays meter and the total of coins in the coinbox from the total registered on the total plays meter will result in the number of free games eliminated from the machine without being used in play. The device is so equipped that the replay meter may be readily rewired in order to record only the number of free games so eliminated. The respondent machine had no payout unit on it. All that a player could receive directly from the machine was free games. Defense, please state your case. Thank you, your honor. I'd like to start with the definition of a gambling device per the state of Maryland. Number 1. Any machine is a slot machine and thus unlawful to possess or operate in the state if it is adapted for use in such a way that, as a result of the insertion or deposit therein of any piece of money, coin, token, or other object such machine is caused to operate or may be operated, and by reason of any element of chance the user may receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, coin, token, or other object representative of and convertible in 2 The intent of the Legislature in the enactment of the foregoing act is expressed as not intending to apply to the machine apparatus or device commonly known or colloquially referred to a pinball machine so long as said machine apparatus or device does not permit any compensation remuneration recompense reward repayment or winnings beyond an automatic replay of the game or games mechanically provided upon said machine
    8:29
    I'd like to point out that the jury found under the federal statute that the user could become entitled to receive some piece of money. That is true. The jury, however, was given an instruction based on federal, not Maryland law. Before the court can say what weight it will give the jury's determination, The court must decide that the law of Maryland is the same as the law of the United States, that the two statutes, though enacted one by Congress of the United States and one by the General Assembly of Maryland, are in pari materia. The government also claims that the machine permits payment, since the machine allows the replays to be run off without actual playing, the winner instead receiving payment for the games that he has won. This court cannot agree with the government's position. The very same legislature which enacted the Anti-slot Machine Statute, Chapter 617 of the Laws of Maryland, 1963, reenacted Section 19 of Article 56 of the Maryland Annotated Code. Under Section 19 of Article56, which applies to Baltimore City, free play pinball machines may be licensed. A free play pinball machine is defined by the section as a machine which, upon insertion of one or more coins, causes the mechanism to release one or more balls for the use of The player to be propelled by means of a plunger upon the obtaining a certain scores or combinations of numbers the machine rewards a player with the specified number of free games allowing the player to continue to play the machine without the insertion of additional coins or tokens. The free play pinball machine shall not pay out either cash or tokens. It is clear therefore that the respondent may be registered in the city of Baltimore in Maryland. Interpreting Section 19 of Article 56 of Maryland Code annotated in Chapter617 ofthe Laws of Maryland 1963, it becomes apparent that any machine that can be licensed under Section 19 of Article56 is not outlawed by Chapter617. If this were not the intention of the legislature, why would it have added Section 2 to Chapter 617 to express the Legislature's intent to make sure that pinball machines were not outlawed? Permit as used by Section 2, Chapter 617 clearly means permit as a function of the machine. The two sections were enacted during the same legislative session. And so I say the court must interpret them if it can so that they're not in contradiction with each other. I would like to call an expert witness, Mr. Graham Smith, to testify regarding this machine and its use as a gambling device. Please state your name and occupation for the court. Graham Smith, Senior Technician at Coinop Amusements Inc. Can you summarize the features of this machine, number B799 Bally Bounty? The game has a magic screen that can change the layout of the bingo card. It also has a skill shot feature that allows you to win on your first ball shot. Mr. Smith, is it possible for a game such as B799 Bally Bounty to pay money directly instead of free games? Yes, with modification. These modifications, are they difficult to perform? No, sir. Are all machines similar to Bally Bounty configured to pay money? No, sir. What is the benefit of leaving out these modifications? I'm sorry to say I don't understand the question. What I mean to say is, why aren't all the machines configured to pay money directly? Oh, I see. Some sites prefer paying tokens. Others don't pay at all. Every location's a little different. And so it wouldn't make sense to have them all modified to pay off. And was this machine modified to pay off directly? No sir Not from the factory Nor is the one pictured here Is it common practice for owners or lessees of this type of machine to redeem free games for money
    12:41
    Yes, sir, it is. Per Exhibit A, a listing of the counters has been provided to the witness. Is there any evidence of payoff from this machine? Yes, sir. Thank you, that is all.
    12:55
    I waive my right to cross-examine. I believe we have the answers we need. Thank you. Upon review, I find that these sections are in pari materia. The legislature in its enactment of Chapter 617 clearly was aiming to outlaw payouts by the machine. Reading Section 1 of Chapter 617, Section 264B of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, As a whole, I find that become entitled to receive as used in this section means become entitled to receive from the machine and not become entitled to receive as a result of playing the machine as used in section 1171 of title 15 of the United States Code. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has not had a chance to throw light on proper construction of either Section 19 of Article 56 or Chapter617. In itsinterpretation of a similar statute, the Maryland Court of Appeals indicated that the machines are lawful, but any payoff or act of paying is unlawful. C Bell v. Board of Prince George's County, 195 MD21 1950. C also Brown v. State, 210MD3011955. Inasmuch as the machine itself does not pay off, the court is of the opinion that the respondent machine is lawful in Baltimore in the state of Maryland. Thus it is exempt from confiscation under section 1177 of title 15 of the United States Code. The responsibility at this time of excluding or permitting pinball machines lies with the General Assembly of Maryland and the wishes of the citizens or the political subdivisions of the State of Maryland. The clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a judgment for the claimant with cause.
    15:11
    And so the bounty was allowed to be operated. Reviewing the marketing information for the bounty, I see that Bally had postponed domestic sale of the machine pending the conclusion of this case. The bounty, with its many features and gameplay, was anything but a gambling device. It was a pinball machine. Well, that's all for tonight. Thank you very much for listening. My name again is Nick Baldridge. You can reach me at 4amusementonlypodcast at gmail.com or you can call me on the bingos line. That's 724-BINGOS1, 724-246-4671. You can listen to us on iTunes, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, via RSS, on Facebook, on Twitter, at bingopodcast, you can follow me on Instagram also at bingopodcast or you can listen to And you can find more info on our website, which is 4amusementonly.libsyn.com. Big thank you to Ryan Claytor for helping with the voices in tonight's audio drama. If you'd like to hear more of these, just let me know. I thought this would be silly, kind of fun, kind of educational thing around New Year's. Happy Holidays to everybody. Hope everybody had a good Christmas. Thank you for watching and I look forward to speaking with you in 2017.