Koehler v. United States, No. 199
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLACK; In not joining this dissent |
| Citation | 72 S.Ct. 75,342 U.S. 852,96 L.Ed. 643 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 199 |
| Parties | Bruno A. KOEHLER and Hugo W. Ackermann, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America |
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
Supreme Court of the United States
Messrs. Elbert R. Jandt and Ben F. Foster, for petitioners.
Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General McInerney and Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Denied.
Memorandum by Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting.
This case involves the power of federal officials to bring state officials to punishment under the remnants of Reconstruction Period legislation.
The state officer in this case, I may observe, richly deserves severe punishment. But the question in the case is one of federal against state power, a line which should not waver with the merits of individuals involved.
The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, is vague and general in the extreme. It makes criminal the willful 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * *.'
It is apparent from this case that this statute enables a federal administration to hold over all state officers a threat of prosecution whose vagueness is attested by the fact that this Court cannot decide most issues of deprivation of constitutional right without dissent, and often divides five to four.
The constitutionality of this very statute was recently sustained by a margin so narrow that no opinion could muster a Court majority. Even those who sustained it did so only by an interpretation of 'willful' to require more than doing of the forbidden act, saying such 'narrower' construction had support in the history of the act. It was construed to require a specific intent to deprive
Page 853
one of constitutional rights in addition to the evil purpose in doing the act itself. The lower courts were reversed because the issue of specific intent to deprive a constitutional right was not presented to the jury. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495.
Mr. Justice BLACK is of the opinion certiorari should be granted.
In this case the trial court properly charged the jury that it must find this specific intent. But it also instructed that 'The color of the act determines the complexion of the intent. The intent to injure or defraud is presumed when the unlawful act, which results in loss or injury, is proved to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner v. People of State of New York Cooper v. People of State of New York, Nos. 391
...under federal law. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495; Koehler v. United States, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 711; Id., 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.Ed. 643. When the penalty is death, we, like state court judges, are tempted to strain the evidence and even, in close c......
-
Brown v. Allen Speller v. Allen Daniels v. Allen, Nos. 32
...Cir., 189 F.2d 711, 714. This Court, against my written dissent calling attention to its effect, refused review. Koehler v. United States, 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.Ed. 643. 7. See, e.g., United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, for a recent example of the applicat......
-
Fernandez v. Leonard, No. 85-1403
...(7th Cir.1961); Jackson v. Duke, 259 F.2d 3,7 (5th Cir.1958); Koehler v. United States, 189 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.E. 643 (1951); Phillips v. Ward, 415 F.Supp. 976, 978 (E.D.Pa.1976), appeal dismissed, 575 F.2d 72 (3d Cir.1978); Reed v. Ph......
-
State ex rel. Dunker v. Spink Hutterian Brethren, No. 9627
...with the statute, establishes a reasonably certain standard of conduct. 188 [77 S.D. 236] F.2d 889. We granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 846, 72 S.Ct. 75, [96 L.Ed. 'A criminal statute must be sufficiently definite to give notice of the required conduct to one who would avoid its penalties, and ......
-
Brown v. Allen Speller v. Allen Daniels v. Allen, Nos. 32
...Cir., 189 F.2d 711, 714. This Court, against my written dissent calling attention to its effect, refused review. Koehler v. United States, 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.Ed. 643. 7. See, e.g., United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, for a recent example of the applicat......
-
Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner v. People of State of New York Cooper v. People of State of New York, Nos. 391
...under federal law. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495; Koehler v. United States, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 711; Id., 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.Ed. 643. When the penalty is death, we, like state court judges, are tempted to strain the evidence and even, in close c......
-
Fernandez v. Leonard, No. 85-1403
...(7th Cir.1961); Jackson v. Duke, 259 F.2d 3,7 (5th Cir.1958); Koehler v. United States, 189 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 852, 72 S.Ct. 75, 96 L.E. 643 (1951); Phillips v. Ward, 415 F.Supp. 976, 978 (E.D.Pa.1976), appeal dismissed, 575 F.2d 72 (3d Cir.1978); Reed v. Ph......
-
State ex rel. Dunker v. Spink Hutterian Brethren, No. 9627
...with the statute, establishes a reasonably certain standard of conduct. 188 [77 S.D. 236] F.2d 889. We granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 846, 72 S.Ct. 75, [96 L.Ed. 'A criminal statute must be sufficiently definite to give notice of the required conduct to one who would avoid its penalties, and ......