United States v. Houcks
Decision Date | 19 December 1963 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 21509-4. |
Citation | 224 F. Supp. 778 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Wilbert HOUCKS, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., by Joseph P. Teasdale, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Harold H. Croghan, Clayton Smalley, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
In this prosecution for violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the information under Rule 12, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on the grounds that Section 1001 is invalid, unconstitutional and void, in the particulars mentioned hereinafter.
Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001, reads as follows:
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
The defendant's motion to dismiss contends that this statute is unconstitutional, invalid and void because:
From these contentions two general grounds can be summarized, namely: 1) the statute is invalid because it improperly delegates legislative authority to the executive branch of the government; and 2) the statute is void for indefiniteness or vagueness.
The answer to the first contention is that administrative authorities are not authorized to determine what is "material," what is a "statement," or what is a "representation" as the defendant contends. Whether or not particular conduct comes within the proscription of the statute is a question to be decided by the fact finder, ordinarily a petit jury applying proper legal standards under direction of a Judge or by a Judge as a matter of law. In no view does an administrative agency have the right to determine what is "material," what is a "statement," or is a "misrepresentation." Either "materiality" is not an element of the offense or the issue of "materiality" is determined by a Court or jury. See Blake v. United States (C.A.8) 323 F.2d 245.
The only function of the department or agency is to determine whether or not a suspected violation will be called to the attention of the prosecuting authorities and in furnishing evidence in support of its complaints.
The second contention, that the statute is unconstitutional, should be determined under the rule of Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507, l. c. 509-510, 515, 68 S.Ct. 665, l. c. 667-668, 670, 92 L.Ed. 840, which fairly states the Constitutional standard as follows:
For other statements of the rule see Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367; Cole v. Arkansas, 338 U.S. 345, l. c. 354, 70 S.Ct. 172, l. c. 176-177, 94 L.Ed. 155; Cline v. Frink Dairy, 274 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146; Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Johnson
...themselves has been without success, United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941), United States v. Houcks, 224 F.Supp. 778 (W.D.Mo.1963). As applied to the facts of this case, the attack is also without merit. The statement which the government alleges defenda......
-
United States v. Matanky
...278 (W.D.Mo.1968), aff'd 410 F.2d 38 (8 Cir.), cert. denied 396 U.S. 822, 90 S.Ct. 63, 24 L.Ed.2d 72 (1969); United States v. Houcks, 224 F.Supp. 778, 779-780 (W.D.Mo.1963). See also, United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941). II. Another contention is that ......
-
Johnson v. United States
...punished without adequate warning. See, American Communications Asso. v. Douds, supra 339 U.S. at 412, 70 S.Ct. 674; United States v. Houcks, 224 F. Supp. 778 (W.D.Mo.1963). The defendant also contends that, as applied in this case, §§ 287 and 1001 are unconstitutional because the local com......
-
Ginn v. Celebrezze
... ... Civ. A. No. 9214 ... United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division ... December 30, 1963. James ... ...