United States v. Classic, 20067 Cr.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 20067 Cr.,20067 Cr. |
| Citation | 35 F. Supp. 457 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CLASSIC et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Rene A. Viosca, U. S. Atty., and J. Skelly Wright, Hilary J. Gaudin, and Robert Weinstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of New Orleans, La., for the United States.
Charles W. Kehl, Fernando J. Cuquet, Jr., and Warren O. Coleman, all of New Orleans, La., for defendants.
The demurrer urged to Counts 5 and 6 of the indictment herein is not well founded in law.
To constitute the crime which is denounced by Section 338, Title 18 U.S. C.A., it is sufficient that the mails are used, or are caused to be used, in the actual, or attempted, execution of a devised scheme or artifice to defraud.
The two counts under attack specifically charge the devising of such a scheme or artifice to defraud, and the subsequent use of the mails in furtherance thereof.
In disposing of said demurrer, the allegations in question must be accepted as true.
The mere fact that the scheme or artifice to defraud originated with respect to, and in the course of, the discharge of defendants' duties as primary election commissioners in no wise justifies the contention of defendants that, since it is the policy of Congress to leave the conduct of the election of its members to State laws, administered by State officers, such commissioners (although they might otherwise be fairly charged with having violated the mail fraud statute) may not legally be charged and tried for the crime denounced because, forsooth, this would operate the control and regulation of a State election, contrary to the policy of non-interference therewith hitherto pursued by Congress.
The mail fraud statute denounces the use of the mails, in the actual, or attempted, execution of any devised scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretences, representations or promises, and the counts 5 and 6 of the indictment herein properly charge the statute's violation.
There is no question here of paramount policy, such as defendants' counsel seek to urge upon the Court, viz., the policy of no congressional regulation of State elections paramount as against the congressional policy of preventing the use of the United States mail in furtherance of a scheme or artifice to defraud.
If the Government's use of the mail fraud statute in such a case as this actually regulates the acts of persons serving as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mandel
...had simply ignored at least two prior decisions to the contrary. United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 917 (D.Ind.1915); United States v. Classic, 35 F.Supp. 457 (E.D.La.1940). None of the other cases cited by defendants explicitly discuss the scope of the statute in terms of definable "economic h......
-
Nally v. United States Gray v. United States
...ex-Director of Illinois Department of Revenue), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3184, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974); United States v. Classic, 35 F.Supp. 457 (ED La.1940) (election commissioner). Some private defendants have also been convicted of devising schemes through which public servant......
-
U.S. v. Mikell
...mails shall be controlled even though it be its policy to leave the control of elections to the several States." United States v. Classic, 35 F.Supp. 457, 458 (D.C.La.1940). States, 488 F.2d at Finally, the importance of a fraudulent scheme is further undermined by three related areas of ca......
-
US v. Berg, 84 CR 190(S-3).
...v. Scott, 701 F.2d 1340, 1343-44 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 856, 104 S.Ct. 175, 78 L.Ed.2d 158 (1983); United States v. Classic, 35 F.Supp. 457 (E.D.La.1940). 3 See, e.g., United States v. Silvano, 812 F.2d 754 (1st Cir.1987) (honest services of local government officials); United ......