United States v. Russell, 143
Citation | 41 S.Ct. 260,65 L.Ed. 553,255 U.S. 138 |
Decision Date | 28 February 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 143,143 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for the United States.
Messrs. Otto Christensen and Seymour Stedman, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 138-140 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Review of an indictment in two counts for violation of section 135 of the Criminal Code of the United States (Comp. St. § 10305) which provides as follows:
'Whoever corruplty, or by threats or force,
'Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, shall endeavor to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States or before any United States commissioner or officer acting as such commissioner, or any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States commissioner or officer acting as such commissioner, in the discharge of his duty, or who corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, shall influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice therein, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'
The government does not press the case on count 2. It is only necessary, therefore, to consider count 1. It charges defendant with unlawfully and corruptly endeavoring to influence one William D. Russell, who, he well knew, was a petit juror in the court in the discharge of his, the juror's duty, and who he knew had been summoned as a petit juror on April 3, 1918, at which time the trial of William D. Haywood and others was to begin. The manner of the execution of the violation of the section the indictment details as follows:
'Endeavoring to ascertain in advance of the examination of said William D. Russell in said court as to his qualifications to sit as a petit juror at said trial whether said William D. Russell was favorably inclined towards said William D. Haywood and his codefendants, and corruptly to induce said William D. Russell to favor the acquittal of said William D. Haywood and his codefendants in case he should be selected as a petit juror at said trial, said L. C. Russell, on said April 1, 1918, called at the home of said William D. Russell at No. 604 West Thirty-First street, in said city of Chicago, and engaged Lucy Russell, wife of said William D. Russell, in a conversation, in the course of which said L. C. Russell told said Lucy Russell that he represented said William D. Haywood and his codefendants and requested her to question her husband as to his attitude towards said William D. Maywood and his codefendants in the matter of the charges contained in said indictment and report the result of such questioning to him, the said L. C. Russell, because, as said L. C. Russell then and there stated to said Lucy Russell, they (meaning said William D. Haywood and his codefendants) did not want to pay money to any of the petit jurors sitting at the trial of said case unless they knew such petit jurors would favor their acquittal; by means of which request and statement said L. C. Russell conveyed to Lucy Russell, and endeavored to convey to said William D. Russell, an offer to pay money to said William D. Russell in return for his favoring such acquittal. * * *'
Defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Dozier, Crim. No. 80-2-B.
...sufficient if the defendant endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 41 S.Ct. 260, 65 L.Ed. 553 (1921); United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200 (5 Cir. 1979); United States v. Jackson, 607 F.2d 1219 (5 Cir. 1979); O......
-
U.S. v. Silverman
...describes any effort or assay to accomplish the evil purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143, 41 S.Ct. 260, 261, 65 L.Ed. 553 (1921). Knowledge and intent are necessary to sustain a conviction under section 1503. United States v. Haas, 583 F.2......
-
United States v. Knohl
...it is not necessary that the defendant succeed in his attempt for a conviction to be sustained. See United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143, 41 S.Ct. 260, 65 L.Ed. 553 (1921); Roberts v. United States, 239 F.2d 467, 470 (9 Cir. 1956); Catrino v. United States, supra 176 F.2d at The judg......
-
U.S. v. Howard
...investigation. This claim is meaningless, not only because success is irrelevant under section 1503, see United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143, 41 S.Ct. 260, 65 L.Ed. 553 (1921); United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cioffi, 493 F.2d 1111, 1119 (2d ......
-
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
...515 U.S. at 599 (finding that defendant’s actions need not be successful and “an ‘endeavor’ suffices” (quoting United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143 (1921))). “Endeavor” has been held to denote a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than “attempt.” See infra text accompanying not......
-
Obstruction of justice
...at 766 (same). 31. Aguilar , 515 U.S. at 610 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143 (1921)); accord Barfield , 999 F.2d at 1523 (explaining the endeavor component describes any effort to obstruct justice); United States ......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...U.S. 593, 599 (1995) (explaining that defendant's actions need not be successful; "an endeavor suffices" (citing United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143 (1921))) (internal quotation marks omitted); Fleming, 215 F.3d at 936 (asserting endeavor to obstruct justice suffices for conviction ......
-
Obstruction of Justice
.... . . endeavors to influence . . . shall be punished . . . .”); see also Aguilar , 515 U.S. at 599 (quoting United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143 (1921)) (finding that defendant’s actions need not be successful and “an ‘endeavor’ suffices”). “Endeavor” has been held to denote a les......