United States v. Harned
| Decision Date | 25 June 1890 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HARNED. |
| Court | United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division |
Syllabus by the Court
In a trial upon an indictment founded upon section 5481, Rev. St proof that money in excess of legal fees was received by an officer of the United States, and that in receiving the money he acted in an official capacity and corruptly, is not sufficient to warrant a conviction, without evidence tending to prove that the excess was exacted by the defendant, and not paid voluntarily.
When upon trial of a criminal case, the prosecution fails to introduce any evidence to show one of the elements of the crime charged, a motion to instruct the jury to acquit the defendant will be granted.
Patrick H. Winston, U.S. Atty., and P. C. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty.
A. R Coleman, for defendant.
I will have to grant this motion. This indictment is founded upon section 5481 of the Revised Statutes. The defendant is brought to the bar to answer the charges in this indictment and nothing else. He cannot be convicted here on general principles, or for any sort of wrong-doing except the crime of extortion. As has been said in the argument, the statute does not attempt to define 'extortion,' and it does not attempt to define the crime by any other word than the word 'extortion.' It simply states that any officer of the United States guilty of extortion shall be punished in a certain manner. It is incumbent on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove every material fact by competent evidence, sufficient to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt. Every single element of the crime must be shown by affirmative proof. Now, there is evidence in this case sufficient to go to the jury as to almost everything necessary to constitute this offense. There is evidence here that the defendant was an officer of the United States. There is evidence here that he received money from Capt. Sprague in excess of the legal fees. There is evidence that he knew that those fees were illegal, (but that would not have been necessary to prove, because under no circumstances could he defend his action on the ground of ignorance as to what the fees were,) but there is evidence to go to the jury that he had full and ample knowledge of all the facts which would be necessary for him to have in order to commit the offense. There is evidence that I would be willing to submit to the jury of a corrupt motive. All those things are necessary to make out this offense, but insufficient without proof of an additional fact. The word 'extortion' implies that the money paid was extorted on the part of the one who received it, and was paid unwillingly by the party paying the same, and the weak point here is that the prosecution has utterly failed to introduce any evidence whatever that this money was not voluntarily paid by Capt. Sprague, he knowing at the time that it was in excess of the amount that was required to be paid, and for that reason I do not think that any conviction of the defendant on this indictment would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Aguon
...insisted that there must be an express request for payment by an official before he could be guilty of extortion. E.g., United States v. Harned, 43 F. 376 (D.Wash.1890). Other courts found demand in a course of conduct that conveyed the official's message to his victim. E.g., Commonwealth v......
-
U.S. v. Aguon
... . Page 1158 . 851 F.2d 1158 . 57 USLW 2063 . UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, . v. . Katherine Bordallo AGUON, Defendant-Appellant. . No. ... E.g., United States v. Harned, 43 F. 376 (D.Wash.1890). Other courts found demand in a course of conduct that conveyed the ......
-
United States v. Marcus, 9388.
...according to the testimony of Mann and Mayhew. We find that the conviction under the bribery statute was lawful. See United States v. Harned, D.C., 43 F. 376, 377.4 It is urged by appellant that it was not sufficiently alleged or proved that he was an officer of the United States. The point......
-
Daniels v. United States
...that the money paid was extorted on the part of the one who received it, and was paid unwillingly by the one who paid it (United States v. Harned D. C. 43 F. 376). "The distinction between bribery and extortion seems to be that the former offense consists in offering a present or receiving ......