Rewis v. United States, 5342
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MARSHALL |
| Citation | 91 S.Ct. 1056,401 U.S. 808,28 L.Ed.2d 493 |
| Parties | James Wintfored REWIS and Mary Lee Williams, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 5342,5342 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1971 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Syllabus
Petitioners conducted a lottery operation in Florida, near the Georgia border. They were convicted along with two Georgia residents who placed bets at petitioners' establishment, of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952, the Travel Act, which prohibits interstate travel with the intent to 'promote, manage, establish, carry on or facilitate' certain illegal activity. The District Court instructed the jury that if the Georgia bettors traveled to Florida for the purpose of gambling, they violated the Act, and that a defendant could be found guilty under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, without proof that he had personally performed every act constituting the charged offense. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of the Georgia bettors, holding that § 1952 did not make it a federal crime merely to cross a state line to place a bet, but upheld petitioners' convictions on the ground that gambling establishment operators are responsible for the interstate travel of their customers. Held: Conducting a gambling operation frequented by out-of-state bettors does not, without more, constitute a violation of the Travel Act. Pp. 811—814.
418 F.2d 1218, reversed.
Albert J. Datz, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.
Sidney M. Glazer, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Page 809
Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, petitioners challenge their convictions under the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which prohibits interstate travel in furtherance of certain criminal activity.1 Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowed an expansive interpretation of the Act, the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners' convictions. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.
Petitioners, James Rewis and Mary Lee Williams, were convicted along with two other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.2
Page 810
Their convictions arose from a lottery, or numbers operation, which petitioners admittedly ran in Yulee, Florida, a small community located a few miles south of the Georgia-Florida state line. Petitioners are Florida residents, and there is no evidence that they at any time crossed state lines in connection with the operation of their lottery. The other two convicted defendants are Georgia residents who traveled from their Georgia homes to place bets at petitioners' establishment in Yulee.
The District Court instructed the jury that mere bettors in a lottery violated Florida law, and that if the bettors traveled interstate for the purpose of gambling, they also violated the Travel Act. Presumably referring to petitioners, the District Court further charged that a defendant could be found guilty under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2,3 without proof that he personally performed every act constituting the charged offense. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that § 1952 did not make it a federal crime merely to cross a state line for the purpose of placing a bet and reversed the convictions of the two Georgia residents because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that they were anything other than customers of the bambling operation.4 However, the Court of Appeals upheld peti-
Page 811
tioners' convictions on the ground that operators of gambling establishments are responsible for the interstate travel of their customers. 418 F.2d 1218, 1222.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that it cannot be said, with certainty sufficient to justify a criminal conviction, that Congress intended that interstate travel by mere customers of a gambling establishment should violate the Travel Act.5 But we are unable to conclude that conducting a gambling operation frequented by out-of-state bettors, by itself, violates the Act. Section 1952, prohibits interstate travel with the intent to 'promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate' certain kinds of illegal activity; and the ordinary meaning of this language suggests that the traveler's purpose must involve more than the desire to patronize the illegal activity. Legislative history of the Act is limited, but does reveal that § 1952 was aimed primarily at organized crime and, more specifically, at persons who reside in one State while operating or managing illegal activities located in another.6 In addition, we are struck by what Congress
Page 812
did not say. Given the ease with which citizens of our Nation are able to travel and the existence of many multi-state metropolitan areas, substantial amounts of criminal activity, traditionally subject to state regulation, are patronized by out-of-state customers. In such a context, Congress would certainly recognize that an expansive Travel Act would alter sensitive federal-state relationships, could overextend limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanner v. United States, No. 86-177
...the statute in favor of petitioners, as criminal defendants in these cases." Id., at 491, 104 S.Ct., at 1177; see Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971). Unlike the interpretation of the federal bribery statute adopted by the Court in Dixson, t......
-
U.S. v. Harris, Nos. 89-3205
...in favor of lenity.' " United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971) (quoting Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971)). If, "[a]fter 'seiz[ing] every thing from which aid can be derived,' we are left with an ......
-
U.S. v. Cerilli, No. 78-2105
...Act offense is the requirement of travel in interstate commerce, or the use of interstate commerce facilities. Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971), noted that Congress did not intend overly broad application of the Travel Act which "would al......
-
United States v. Reichert, No. 13–3479.
...favor of lenity.” Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 427–28, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) ( citing Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971); United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 437, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978); Unite......
-
Tanner v. United States, No. 86-177
...the statute in favor of petitioners, as criminal defendants in these cases." Id., at 491, 104 S.Ct., at 1177; see Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971). Unlike the interpretation of the federal bribery statute adopted by the Court in Dixson, t......
-
Whalen v. United States, No. 78-5471
...in favor of lenity,' " United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522, 30 L.Ed.2d 488, quoting Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493. See Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70; Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S......
-
Lewis v. United States, No. 78-1595
...378, and n. 11 (1977); United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S., at 122-123. Similarly, any principle of lenity, see Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971), has no application. The touchtsone of that principle is statutory ambiguity. Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 832 (19......
-
United States v. Sacco, No. 72-1985 to 72-1989.
...sustained conviction only when the offense was clearly within the confines of the act under consideration. Thus in Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971) the Court stated, with respect to the Travel Act,42 that it would not interpret the Act to apply to t......
-
Overcriminalization and the Endangered Species Act: Mens Rea and Criminal Convictions for Take
...Under the rule of lenity, any ambiguity in a criminal statute must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. See Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971). 35. See Gypsum , 438 U.S. at 440-41. he potential breadth of this criminal provision risks substantial overdeterrence. See id . ......
-
Passive Avoidance.
...statute is to be construed in favor of the accused"); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971) (quoting Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971)) (similar); see also United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 54 (1994) ("[W]here text, structure, and history fail to establish t......
-
CRIMINAL LAW--EXTORTION OR PUBLIC POLICY, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?: FIRST CIRCUIT FINDS HOBBS ACT EXTORTION MAY APPLY TO THE ACTIONS OF TWO BOSTON CITY HALL OFFICIALS--UNITED STATES V. BRISSETTE, 919 F.3D 670 (1ST CIR. 2019).
...found them to be, the Act could not properly be expanded as the Government suggests ..." Enmons, 410 U.S. at 411; Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971) (stating "ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity."); Bell v. United States, 3......
-
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1970-1971
...agambling operation which is patronized by out-of-state bettors is a violation of thefederal statute. In Rewis v. United States (401 U.S. 808; 91 S. Ct. 1056) withan opinion by Justice Marshall (vote: 8-0, White abstaining) the Court held thatneither the language of the statute nor its legi......