United States v. Dedof, 8734
| Decision Date | 03 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | 8735.,No. 8734,8734 |
| Citation | 42 F. Supp. 57 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DEDOF. SAME v. DEDOF et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., and James P. McCormick, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
William A. Gray, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
Defendants move to quash on the ground that the bills of indictments do not set forth indictable offenses under the laws of the United States.
The defendants were indicted under Section 4 of the so-called Hatch Act, Act of August 2, 1939, c. 410, 53 Stat. 1147, providing as follows, 18 U.S.C.A. § 61c: "Except as may be required by the provisions of subsection (b), section 61h of this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to deprive, attempt to deprive, or threaten to deprive, by any means, any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of race, creed, color, or any political activity, support of, or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election."
The indictments in question charge that the defendants knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully threatened to deprive certain named persons of compensation or benefits provided for by an Act of Congress which appropriated funds for relief purposes, on account of the threatened persons' "support of or opposition to a political party" at an election involving federal offices.
Defendants contend that the indictments charge offenses in the disjunctive and are therefore defective.
The offense charged in the indictments was not known at common law and, being a statutory crime, the indictment must follow the statute creating the offense.
The general rule is that the exact language of a criminal statute may be sufficient to charge an offense "if such language is, according to the natural import of the words, fully descriptive of the offense". United States v. Lewis, 7 Cir., 110 F.2d 460, 462. See also Galatas v. United States, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 15, 18.
It is equally well settled, as was stated in Boykin v. United States, 5 Cir., 11 F.2d 484, 485, that: "Where a statute is general, it is not sufficient merely to follow its language in an indictment, but the indictment must allege the specific offense coming under the general description of the statute, in order that the accused may enjoy the right, secured by the Sixth Amendment, `to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' against him."
Pleading in the disjunctive or alternative makes an indictment defective.
The rule is stated as follows in Corpus Juris (31 C.J. 663, sec. 181(3): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Albarty
...State v. Harper, 64 N.C. 129; United States v. Buckner, 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 468; Price v. United States, D.C., 11 F.2d 283; United States v. Dedof, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 57; Isom v. State, 71 Ga.App. 803, 32 S.E.2d 437; Powell v. State, 196 Miss. 331, 17 So.2d 524; State v. Jefferson, 23 A.2d 406, ......
-
United States v. MacKenzie, Cr. No. 58-62.
...the statutory offense in the disjunctive or alternative lacks the necessary certainty and is wholly insufficient. United States v. Dedof, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1941, 42 F.Supp. 57; see Heflin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 371, 373; Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 283, certio......
-
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. McIntosh, Criminal No. 3 — 1958
...990; Price v. United States, 5 Cir. 1945, 150 F.2d 283, 284, cert. den. 326 U.S. 789, 66 S. Ct. 473, 90 L. Ed. 479; United States v. Dedof, E. D. Pa. 1941, 42 F. Supp. 57. See also 27 Am. Jur. Indictments and Informations § 127; 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 101. For a complaint ......