United States v. Burroughs
Decision Date | 15 May 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 5653.,5653. |
Citation | 65 F.2d 796,62 App. DC 163 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. BURROUGHS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and John J. Wilson, James R. Kirkland, and Roger Robb, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C.
Robert H. McNeill and Levi H. David, both of Washington, D. C., and H. Woodward Winburn, of Greensboro, N. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
An appeal by the United States from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sustaining a demurrer to an indictment charging a violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of February 28, 1925 (chapter 368, title 3, § 301 et seq. 43 Stat. 1053, 1070), incorporated in the U. S. Code as § 241 et seq. c. 8, title 2 (2 USCA § 241 et seq.).
The pertinent provisions of the act as set forth in title 2, U. S. Code (2 USCA), read as follows:
The appellees, Ada L. Burroughs and James Cannon, Jr., were indicted by a grand jury of the District of Columbia for an alleged violation of section 244 of the foregoing act.
The indictment is in ten counts. The first eight counts charge the defendants with violations of the act and the last two counts charge them with conspiracy to violate the same. In the first, third, fifth, and seventh counts the charge is made that the defendants willfully violated the statute. In the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth counts it is not charged that the offense was willfully committed. In the first conspiracy count the charge is made that the offense was willfully committed. In the second of these counts the word "willfully" is omitted from the charge. We shall take the first and second counts as illustrative of the first eight counts.
The first count charges that Burroughs from July 22, 1928, to March 16, 1929, was the treasurer of a certain political committee which then accepted contributions and made expenditures for the purpose of influencing and attempting to influence the election of presidential and vice presidential electors in two states; that at divers times during that period various contributions of money were made by one E. C. Jameson for said political committee, aggregating the sum of $58,000; that it thereafter, and during said period of time, to wit, between the 10th and 15th days next preceding November 6, 1928, the date on which a general election was held at which candidates and presidential and vice presidential electors were elected in the several states of the United States, became and was the lawful duty of said Burroughs, as such treasurer of said political committee, to file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States a statement, complete as of the day next preceding the date of the filing thereof, if it should be filed, containing the name and address of said E. C. Jameson, the person who made said contributions for said political committee as aforesaid, together with the amount and date of each of said contributions. The indictment further alleges that during said period of time, and while she was treasurer of said political committee, said Burroughs unlawfully and feloniously did willfully violate section 244 of chapter 8 of title 2 of the United States Code aforesaid, by then and there unlawfully and feloniously willfully failing to file with said Clerk, to wit, in said District of Columbia, any such statement, or any statement whatever, pertaining to said contribution, containing any such information; and that at and within the District of Columbia the appellee Cannon during said period of time, well knowing all the premises aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did willfully aid, abet, and procure the commission of the above-described offense on the part of said Burroughs, and so was then and there a principal in the commission of that offense.
The second count of said indictment contained the same allegations of facts as those contained in the first count, except for the omission of the words "feloniously and willfully" therefrom, charging only that the failure of Burroughs to file said statement was "unlawfully" done. The count, however, charged that Cannon unlawfully did willfully aid and abet Burroughs in the commission of the offense.
The appellees filed a demurrer to the indictment upon the grounds, first, that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and section 244 thereof were and are unconstitutional; and, second, that the indictment is insufficient to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against them and to afford due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
The demurrer was submitted to the lower court and was sustained upon the second of the grounds therein set out.
The United States thereupon appealed from that decision to this court. The appellees then filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that under the Criminal Appeals Act (18 U. S. C. § 682 18 USCA § 682) the appeal should have been taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, and consequently that this court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. However, in answer to interrogatories certified by us to the United States Supreme Court, this court was instructed that under section 935, D. C. Code, we possess...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nader v. Saxbe
...§ 3282 (1970). 10 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Mandamus, Civil Action No. 243-72, Feb. 8, 1972. 11 United States v. Burroughs, 62 App.D.C. 163, 65 F.2d 796 (1933), affirmed, 290 U.S. 534, 54 S.Ct. 287, 78 L.Ed. 484 (1934). This case upheld the constitutionality of the 12 Complaint......
-
Sherman v. United States.
...v. United States, 5 Cir., 67 F.2d 820, 90 A.L.R. 1276; Townsend v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 223, 95 F.2d 352; United States v. Burroughs, 62 App.D.C. 163, 65 F.2d 796. 9‘Instructions are required only on matters about which there is some issue to be presented to the jury.’ 23 C.J.S., Crim......
-
U.S. v. Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President
...of scienter. Still the Supreme Court cannot be said to have overridden the view expressed in the case below in this court, 62 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 65 F.2d 796 (1933), that the non-willful section would punish a failure to report as required because of carelessness, inadvertence, or neglect, or......