United States v. Randle, 9558.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9558.,9558. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RANDLE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Harvey G. Fields, U. S. Atty., and John A. Patin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., for plaintiff.
Hugh M. Wilkinson, of New Orleans, La., for defendants.
This case involves the charge, in substance, that the defendants used and conspired to use the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, by making false election returns in a state primary election, including the denial to qualified persons of the right to vote, spoiling ballots and incorrectly counting and tabulating votes in favor of certain candidates and against opposition candidates. The mails were used in transmitting the alleged false and fraudulent returns to the Secretary of the State.
Defendants have demurred to the bill on the ground, in substance, that it does not state facts constituting a crime under the mail fraud statute. 18 U.S.C.A. § 338.
Defendants' brief was not received until the first of the year and there is not time to prepare an extended opinion. Much space has been devoted therein to a discussion of the provisions of the state primary law, the limited period of contests which can only be maintained upon a claim of having been nominated, and to the fact that the results are now final, in so far as the candidates are concerned. However, this memorandum will be devoted to the question of whether there was in the circumstances anything of value as to which anyone could be defrauded within the meaning of the statute.
The scheme did not have to be successful to the point of actually defrauding the parties intended to be defrauded so as to give them a cause of action against the schemers. It would have been sufficient if the intent to defraud of something of value existed and the mails were used in furtherance thereof. But in determining whether the scheme was one to defraud within the meaning of the statute, it is necessary to ascertain if the indictment states facts which show there was something of value of which the person named could be defrauded. The state law gives to qualified persons the right to seek nomination to public office and prescribes how it shall be accomplished with appropriate remedies for contests and ascertaining whether it has been won. The question is whether this right comes within the mail fraud statute. If so, then it would not be necessary, as in case of maintaining a contest of the nomination, to show that the scheme had succeeded to the extent of affecting enough votes, which, if properly cast and counted, for the person to be defrauded, would have insured his election. The intent and purpose being to that end would be sufficient.
The mail fraud statute is not dependent upon state law in the sense that what is done should also be a crime thereunder. It is conceivable that such a scheme and intent to defraud could exist with respect to matters entirely lacking in criminal responsibility under state law. Primary elections merely entitle the successful participant to become the candidate of his party in the ensuing general election, in which he may or may not be successful. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mandel
...pecuniary loss, citing, inter alia, Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 44 S.Ct. 511, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924); United States v. Randle, 39 F.Supp. 759 (W.D.La.1941); Epstein v. United States, supra; United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1970), and United St......
-
U.S. v. Runnels
...363 U.S. 370, 80 S.Ct. 1171, 4 L.Ed.2d 1277 (1960); United States v. Beitscher, 467 F.2d 269 (10th Cir.1972); United States v. Randle, 39 F.Supp. 759, 760 (W.D.La.1941). After 1973, courts began to permit conviction of corrupt politicians, without finding a direct transfer of economic value......
-
United States v. States
...pretences, representations or promises * * *. 35 F.Supp. at 458 (emphasis in original). Another district court case, United States v. Randle, 39 F.Supp. 759 (W.D. La.1941), relied upon by appellants, held that the mail fraud statute could not be applied in an election fraud case because nei......
-
United States v. States
...that anyone was defrauded of money or property. The principal case cited in support of defendants' argument is United States v. Randle, 39 F.Supp. 759 (W.D.La.1941) which in turn relies on United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917), United States v. Bathgate,......