United States v. Harris
UNITED STATES v. HARRIS
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ross (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an indictment for a mail fraud scheme and determined that it failed to directly allege that the fraudulent scheme itself included the intended use of the United States mail. The court ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court directed a verdict of not guilty because the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense.“For this reason the court is obliged to instruct the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal principle that an indictment must directly allege every essential element of the crime, including the intent to use the mail in furtherance of the scheme, rather than merely reciting that mail was used. The court found the indictment deficient on this specific point based on the text provided. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the essential element of the mail fraud statute (intent to use mail in the scheme) and applies the cited authorities to determine that the indictment's recital of mail use was insufficient to satisfy this element. The conclusion to direct a verdict of not guilty follows logically from the finding of a fatal defect in the indictment.
Opinion — Ross
ROSS, District Judge.
One of the constituent elements of the offense denounced by the statute upon which the indictment in this case is based is the intended use of the United States mail in aid or furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. It is therefore essential that the indictment allege directly, and not inferentially or by way of recital, that the scheme included the intended use of the mail. U. S. v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 Sup. Ct. 571; Brand v. U. S., 4 Fed. 394; U. S. v. Flemming, 18 Fed. 908; U. S. v. Wootten, 29 Fed. 703; U. S. v. Finney, 45 Fed. 42; U. S. v. Smith, 45 Fed. 562; Weeber v. U. S., 62 Fed. 740. From a careful examination of the indictment, I am unable to find any direct allegation that the fraudulent scheme that the defendants are therein alleged to have devised included the use of the post office of the United States in its aid or furtherance. It is alleged in more than one place in the indictment that, in pursuance of the alleged scheme to defraud, the defendants placed and caused to be placed in the United States post office at Los Angeles the letter set out in the indictment, and also that the letter so deposited was to further and effect the object of the conspiracy, which is alleged to be “to misuse the post-office establishment of the United States by devising a scheme to defraud.” In all of this there is no allegation that the fraudulent scheme itself included the intended use of the United States mail, which element, as has been said, is an essential constituent of the statutory offense. For this reason the court is obliged to instruct the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.
Cited by
- United States v. Peuschel No. 36 · 1902-04-28