Fields v. United States
Citation | 228 F.2d 544 |
Decision Date | 27 December 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 7053.,7053. |
Parties | Conley Trigg FIELDS, Luther Compton and Kirby Smith, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Stuart B. Campbell and Stuart B. Campbell, Jr., Wytheville, Va. (A. G. Lively, Lebanon, Va., on brief) for appellants.
Thomas J. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harrisonburg, Va., and John Strickler, U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va. (Benjamin F. Sutherland, Asst. U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., on brief) for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Conley Trigg Fields, Luther Compton and Kirby Smith were indicted and tried in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 241.
The verdict of the jury found Conley Trigg Fields, Luther Compton and Kirby Smith guilty. Their punishment was fixed at six months confinement for Fields, twelve months confinement for Compton and a fine of $1,000.00; and Smith was placed on probation. All of the three defendants who were found guilty have appealed to us.
The statute under which the indictment was found reads:
Three questions are before us on this appeal:
We think the indictment clearly stated an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241. Clearly, the right of citizens to vote in the election of members of Congress, in accordance with applicable State laws, is a right secured by the federal Constitution. As was said by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Stone in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 85 L.Ed. 1368:
See, also, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 35 S.Ct. 904, 59 L.Ed. 1355; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States Constitution, Article 1, §§ 2, 4.
We think, too, that the acts charged in the indictment clearly came within both the letter and spirit of 18 U.S.C.A. § 241. These acts served "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States".
Said Mr. Justice Roberts, in United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 389, 64 S.Ct. 1101, 1103, 88 L.Ed. 1341:
(Italics ours.)
In Crolich v. United States, 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 879, 880, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 830, 73 S.Ct. 36, 97 L.Ed. 646, the indictment was sustained under the statute here involved and Circuit Judge Holmes stated:
"* * * that it was a part of said conspiracy to obstruct, prevent, and hinder, legally qualified citizens from voting in that election, and to cause disqualified persons to impersonate qualified citizens and to vote in their place; that it was a part of said conspiracy to cast false, forged and fictitious votes, at said primary election, with the intent that said illegal votes should be counted and thus should dilute, diminish, and destroy, the value and effect of votes legally cast, with the further purpose of causing the election officers to make a false return and certification of the results of said election."
Defendants rely on the Bathgate case decided March 4, 1918, United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220, 38 S.Ct. 269, 62 L.Ed. 676. The distinction between that case and the case under consideration is quite simple. The Bathgate case rested on a charge of conspiracy to bribe voters. In the original Enforcement Act, bribery of voters was made a substantive offense. This section was repealed and the Court saw in this repeal a legislative intention to exclude this offense from the operation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 241. In the light of the Classic case, supra, there is small comfort for the defendants in the cases of Klein v. United States, 8 Cir., 176 F. 2d 184, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 870, 70 S.Ct. 145, 94 L.Ed. 533; United States v. Kantor, 2 Cir., 78 F.2d 710.
There is no merit in the contention of defendants that even if the indictment charged violations of laws, these should be excused under the doctrine of de minimis. This contention was effectively answered in Prichard v. United States, 6 Cir., 181 F.2d 326, 331, affirmed 339 U.S. 974, 70 S.Ct. 1029, 94 L.Ed. 1380, where Circuit Judge Simons crisply said:
See also, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 64 S.Ct. 1101, 88 L.Ed. 1341.
The record discloses ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury. In the light of this verdict, this evidence must be viewed by us in the manner most favorable to the Government and all questions of the credibility of witnesses are for the jury. Carneal v. United States, 4 Cir., 212 F.2d 20, 22; Tucker v. United States, 4 Cir., 207 F.2d 561; Harding v. United States, 4 Cir., 182 F. 2d 524, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 874, 71 S.Ct. 118, 95 L.Ed. 636; Myres v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 329, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 849, 70 S.Ct. 91, 94 L.Ed. 520; Pilgreen v. United States, 8 Cir., 157 F.2d 427; United States v. McDermott, 7 Cir., 131 F.2d 313, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 765, 63 S.Ct. 664, 87 L.Ed. 1137. And, since this is a conspiracy case, the agreement or understanding between the defendants to accomplish the illegal purpose must be inferred from the evidence in the record.
Out of a long and complicated record, we advert to certain high lights in the evidence which seem to support our conclusion. Though it was in effect denied by Compton, there was evidence that he was very active in working the mail vote in the 1952 election. There was evidence that there was a clear understanding between Compton and William Hendricks, a party Chairman, about this vote; that Compton paid Ralph Griffith to secure signed applications to vote from persons on a list supplied by Compton. The jury doubtless found it hard to believe that 40 out of the 48 mail ballots received by Compton would have been addressed to the voters in his care, even though he was a notary public, unless Compton actively brought this about by his own efforts.
There was considerable evidence of the illiteracy and ignorance of the voters and the manner in which their mail ballots were cast by Compton and Fields. Thus, Homer Street testified that Fields and Griffith brought the ballot to him and further: "Q. Do you say he (Fields) marked on the ballot when you had your hand on it? A. Yes, sir * * *.
Q. Do you know who it was you were voting for? A. I put confidence in him to help me." Somewhat similar testimony as to Compton was given by Bascom Musick.
Grover Sullivan and Mrs. Dewey Reedy testified that they did not vote in this election. The admitted possession of these two ballots by Compton and his inability to offer any explanation as to one of them raised a jury question as to whether Compton had illegally caused these votes to be counted. There was evidence that Kirby Smith, Acting Postmaster, delivered to Compton a number of mail ballots which were not addressed to the voters in care of Compton.
Not without significance is the fact that Smith withheld delivery of some 29 mail ballots at Compton's direction, though many of these addressees were patrons of Smith's post office and were well known to Smith. Smith testified on cross-examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Anderson
...said precinct"). The indictment thus stated an offense under Section 241 with as much precision as was required. Fields v. United States (4th Cir. 1955) 228 F.2d 544, 545-546, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 982, 76 S.Ct. 468, 100 L.Ed. 850; United States v. Morado (5th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 167, II. ......
-
United States v. Mackey
... ... United States, 196 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir. 1952) ... (stuffing ballot boxes); United States v. Nathan, ... 238 F.2d 401,403 (7th Cir. 1956) ("pollution of the ... ballot box" by submitting ballots from fake voters); ... Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544, 547 (4th Cir ... 1955) (discussing conspiracy to incorrectly fill out ballots ... on behalf of illiterate voters who thought they were ... receiving assistance in voting); United States v ... Skurla, 126 F.Supp. 713, 715 (W.D.P.A. 1954) ... ...
-
Wilkins v. United States
...this right are in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 64 S.Ct. 1101, 88 L.Ed. 1341; Fields v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 544; Crolich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 879, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 830, 73 S.Ct. 36, 97 L.Ed. 646 In Powe v. Un......
-
United States v. Morado
...each directed by a single person, with consistent and meticulous success, obtained illegitimate absentee ballots. See Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955); Ledford v. United States, 155 F.2d 574 (6th Cir. Passing to the second step of our consideration of the evidence— whic......
-
Election law violations.
...PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. (64.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1952). (65.) DOJ EL......
-
Election law violations.
...PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552, 557-59 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544, 547-48 (4th Cir. (64.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir......
-
Election law violations.
...PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552, 557-59 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544, 547-48 (4th Cir. (64.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 38; see also Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir......
-
ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
...candidate in any election.” Id. at 54; see also Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552, 557–61 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544, 546–48 (4th Cir. 1955). 283. DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 54; see also Wilkins, 376 F.2d at 554 (holding that the racia......