United States v. Lepowitch, 23034.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 23034.,23034. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEPOWITCH et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Henry S. Janon, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.
This matter comes on for determination under a joint demurrer to the indictment filed on behalf of the defendants. The grand jury has returned an indictment in which the defendants are charged with violating Section 76, 18 U.S.C.A., wherein it is alleged that the defendants falsely assumed and pretended to be agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The indictment is so drawn as to be intended to reach both features of the statute — namely, count one is drawn under the phraseology of the statute covering the activities of one who falsely, in the pretended capacity, takes upon himself to act as such, while count two of the indictment covers the other feature of the statute wherein one in such false and assumed character demands from another a valuable thing.
In the first count the indictment alleges that the defendants did falsely take upon themselves to act in the capacity of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by "demanding of and from the said Mrs Adele Silk that she give the defendants information of and concerning the whereabouts of one Abe Zaidman". The second count alleges that defendants in their pretended character "did demand from the said Mrs. Adele Silk a valuable thing, to-wit, demand that she, the said Mrs. Adele Silk, then and there give to them, the said defendants, valuable information of and concerning the whereabouts of one Abe Zaidman".
The demurrer is based upon one ground only — namely, that the indictment fails to state facts sufficient to charge defendants with a commission of a criminal offense against the United States of America.
The validity of Section 76, 18 U.S.C.A., is not raised by the demurrer, and accordingly there is no constitutional question involved. We are concerned here only with the one feature, that of determining whether the indictment pleads facts sufficient to constitute an offense within the terms of the statute. The language of the statute is fairly clear to the extent that intent to defraud either the United States or any person is a necessary element of the offense, coupled with falsely assuming or pretending to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or some department thereof, or a corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Wilkes, 83-5301
...the district court's ruling on count two which was based on part of section 76. Id. at 703, 63 S.Ct. at 915 (quoting United States v. Lepowitch, 48 F.Supp. 846, 847 (1942) The Supreme Court reversed. The Court compared the two clauses of section 912 and reasoned that clause one, the only on......
-
United States v. Lepowitch, 629
...indictment, holding that the conduct of the defendants, 'while highly reprehensible, does not come within the terms of the statute.' 48 F.Supp. 846, 847.2 He apparently concluded that the count of the indictment under consideration did not, within the meaning of the statute, make sufficient......
-
In re Ahmed Hassan
... ... the classes of people who are eligible for citizenship in the United States. 8 U.S.C.A. § 703. Affidavits filed by petitioner and one other ... ...