UNITED STATES v. CLASSIC, (E.D.La. 1940)

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 20067 Cr.

Attorney(S)

Patrick B. Classic, John A. Morris, Bernard W. Yeager, Jr., William Schumacher, and J.J. Fleddermann were charged by indictment with a certain offense. On demurrer to counts 5 and 6 of the indictment. Demurrer overruled. See, also, 35 F. Supp. 66. Rene A. Viosca, U.S. Atty., and J. Skelly Wright, Hilary J. Gaudin, and Robert Weinstein, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of New Orleans, La., for the United States. Charles W. Kehl, Fernando J. Cuquet, Jr., and Warren O. Coleman, all of New Orleans, La., for defendants.

Judges

Adrian Joseph Caillouet

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Patrick B. Classic, John A. Morris, Bernard W. Yeager, Jr., William Schumacher, and J.J. Fleddermann were charged by indictment with an offense. Counts 5 and 6 of the indictment were the subject of a demurrer. The district judge considered the demurrer and rendered an opinion on October 31, 1940, concluding with an order overruling the demurrer.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the allegations of Counts 5 and 6 of the indictment sufficiently state an offense under Section 338, Title 18 U.S.C.A., by charging the devising of a scheme to defraud and the use of the United States mails in furtherance thereof.
Whether the fact that the alleged scheme originated in the course of the defendants' official duties as primary election commissioners precludes prosecution under the federal mail fraud statute because of the congressional policy of leaving conduct of state elections to state law and state officers.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

Defendants (through their counsel) contended that because the alleged scheme or artifice to defraud originated in and was connected with the discharge of their duties as primary election commissioners, federal prosecution under the mail fraud statute would in effect control or regulate a State election, contrary to a congressional policy of non-interference in the conduct of state elections.

Government's Position (as reflected in the opinion)

The counts specifically charge the devising of a scheme or artifice to defraud and the subsequent use of the mails in furtherance thereof, which, under Section 338, Title 18 U.S.C.A., constitutes the offense when the mails are used (or caused to be used) in the actual or attempted execution of such a scheme.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

The elements of the offense under Section 338, Title 18 U.S.C.A., require only that the mails be used, or caused to be used, in the actual or attempted execution of a devised scheme or artifice to defraud.
Counts 5 and 6 specifically alleged (1) the devising of a scheme or artifice to defraud and (2) the subsequent use of the mails in furtherance of that scheme; therefore, on a demurrer the court must accept the allegations as true.
The defendants' contention that prosecution would impermissibly regulate state elections because the scheme arose in the course of their duties as primary election commissioners was rejected. The court held that the congressional policy of leaving the conduct of state elections to state law does not override Congress's authority and intent to prevent and punish misuse of the United States mails.
If the alleged misuse of the mails occurred under cover of official duties, that misuse remains subject to congressional regulation; prosecuting such misuse does not amount to an impermissible interference with state control of elections.
Accordingly, the demurrer to Counts 5 and 6 was found not well founded in law and was overruled.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The demurrer to Counts 5 and 6 of the indictment is overruled.

Implications:

The immediate effect is that Counts 5 and 6 remain in the indictment and the defendants may be proceeded against on those counts.
The court's opinion emphasizes that Congress's power to prevent the misuse of the United States mails applies even when the alleged misuse is connected with actions taken in official capacities as state election commissioners. The opinion does not purport to establish broader new legal precedent beyond its application to the indictment before the court.

Show full summary ...

UNITED STATES v. CLASSIC et al.

CAILLOUET, District Judge.

The demurrer urged to Counts 5 and 6 of the indictment herein is not well founded in law.

To constitute the crime which is denounced by Section 338, Title 18 U.S.C.A., it is sufficient that the mails are used, or are caused to be used, in the actual, or attempted, execution of a devised scheme or artifice to defraud.

The two counts under attack specifically charge the devising of such a scheme or artifice to defraud, and the subsequent use of the mails in furtherance thereof.

In disposing of said demurrer, the allegations in question must be accepted as true.

The mere fact that the scheme or artifice to defraud originated with respect to, and in the course of, the discharge of defendants' duties as primary election commissioners in no wise justifies the contention of defendants that, since it is the policy of Congress to leave the conduct of the election of its members to State laws, administered by State officers, such commissioners (although they might otherwise be fairly charged with having violated the mail fraud statute) may not legally be charged and tried for the crime denounced because, forsooth, this would operate the control and regulation of a State election, contrary to the policy of non-interference therewith hitherto pursued by Congress.

The mail fraud statute denounces the use of the mails, in the actual, or attempted, execution of any devised scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretences, representations or promises, and the counts 5 and 6 of the indictment herein properly charge the statute's violation.

There is no question here of paramount policy, such as defendants' counsel seek to urge upon the Court, viz., the policy of no congressional regulation of State elections paramount as against the congressional policy of preventing the use of the United States mail in furtherance of a scheme or artifice to defraud.

If the Government's use of the mail fraud statute in such a case as this actually regulates the acts of persons serving as commissioners, insofar as such acts have for their intended purpose and end the denounced misuse of the United States mail under cover of the official discharge of their duties as such commissioners of election, it can not be reasonably contended that this evidences an attempted ignoring of the claimed policy of Congress not to interfere in the conduct of elections by the State.

The unlawful act of the commissioners in the alleged devising of the scheme to defraud and in thereafter using the mails in the execution thereof is the subject of congressional regulation.

Congress definitely intends that the misuse of the mails shall be controlled even though it be its policy to leave the control of elections to the several States.

In view of the premises, the demurrer is overruled.