Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/103502/anderson-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 14:23:01
Document Index: 239883133

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 7', '§ 3', '§ 1077', '§ 1361', '§ 1362', '§ 241', '§ 1681', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 6', '§ 241', '§ 19', '§ 4', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 241']

Anderson Vs United States - Citation 103502 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Anderson Vs. United States - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/103502CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJun-03-1974Case Number417 U.S. 211AppellantAndersonRespondentUnited StatesExcerpt:
anderson v. united states - 417 u.s. 211 (1974)
for having conspired to cast fictitious votes for federal, state, and local candidates in a west virginia primary election, petitioners were convicted of violating 18 u.s.c. § 241, which makes it unlawful to conspire to injure any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the united states. at the trial, over petitioners' objections, certain statements made by two of..... Judgment:
1. The out-of-court statements were admissible under basic principles of the law of evidence and conspiracy, regardless of whether or not § 241 encompasses conspiracies to cast fraudulent votes in state and local elections. Pp.
(a) The statements were not hearsay, since they were not offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted; hence their admissibility was governed by the rule that acts of one alleged conspirator can be admitted into evidence against the other conspirators, if relevant to prove the existence of the conspiracy, even though they may have occurred after the conspiracy ended.
417 U. S. 219
(b) Since the statements were not hearsay, the jury did not have to make a preliminary finding that the conspiracy charged
was still in progress before it could consider them as evidence against the other defendants, and accordingly the statements were admissible if relevant to prove the conspiracy charged. P.
417 U. S. 221
(c) Even if the federal conspiracy ended on May 27, the fact that two of the petitioners perjured themselves at the local election contest hearing was relevant and admissible to prove the underlying motive of the conspiracy. Accordingly, in order to rule on petitioners' challenge to the admissibility of this evidence, there was no need for the Court of Appeals, and there is no need for this Court, to decide whether petitioners' conspiracy ended on May 27 for purposes of federal jurisdiction or whether § 241 applies to conspiracies to cast fraudulent votes in local elections. Pp.
2. The evidence amply supports the verdict that each of the petitioners engaged in the conspiracy with the intent of having false votes cast for the federal candidates. Pp.
417 U. S. 222
(a) The fact that petitioners' primary motive was to affect the result in the local, rather than the federal, election has no significance, since although a single conspiracy may have several purposes, if one of them -- whether primary or secondary -- violates a federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. Pp.
417 U. S. 225
(b) That the petitioners may have had no purpose to change the outcome of the federal election is irrelevant, since that is not the specific intent required under § 241, but rather the intent to have false votes cast, and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to have their expressions of choice given full value, without dilution or distortion by fraudulent balloting. Pp.
417 U. S. 226
(c) Even assuming,
that § 241 is limited to conspiracies to cast false votes for federal candidates, it was not plain error for the District Court's jury instructions not to focus specifically upon the federal conspiracy, since, in view of the fact that the prosecution's case showed a single conspiracy to cast entire slates of false votes and the defense consisted primarily of a challenge to the Government witnesses' credibility, it is inconceivable that, even if charged by more specific instructions, the jury could have found a conspiracy to cast false votes for local offices without also finding a similar conspiracy affecting the federal offices. Pp.
417 U. S. 227
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined,
417 U. S. 228
The underlying facts are not in dispute. On May 12, 1970, a primary election was held in West Virginia for the purpose of nominating candidates for the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and various state and local offices. One of the nominations most actively contested in Logan County was the Democratic nomination for County Commissioner, an office vested with a wide variety of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. [
] Among the several candidates for the Democratic nomination for this office were the incumbent, Okey Hager, and his major opponent, Neal Scaggs.
Petitioners are state or county officials, including the Clerk of the Logan County Court, the Clerk of the County Circuit Court, the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of the County, and a State Senator. The evidence at trial showed that, by using the power of their office, the petitioners convinced three election officials in charge of the Mount Gay precinct in Logan County to cast false and fictitious votes on the voting machines and then to
destroy poll slips so that the number of persons who had actually voted could not be determined except from the machine tally. [
] While it is apparent from the record that the primary purpose behind the casting of false votes was to secure the nomination of Hager for the office of County Commissioner, it is equally clear that about 100 false votes were, in fact, cast not only for Hager, but also for Senator Robert Byrd and Representative Ken Hechler, who appeared on the ballot for renomination to their respective chambers of the United States Congress, as well as for other state and local candidates considered part of the Hager slate. [
The conspiracy achieved its primary objective, the countywide vote totals showing Hager the winner by 21 votes, counting the Mount Gay precinct returns. About two weeks after the election, on May 27, 1970, the election results were certified. After that date, Scaggs filed an election contest [
] challenging certain returns, including
At trial, the other defendants objected to the introduction of Tomblin's prior testimony on the ground that it as inadmissible against anyone but Tomblin. The District Court overruled the objection, but instructed the jury that Tomblin's testimony could be considered only as bearing upon his guilt or innocence, unless the jury should determine that, at the time Tomblin gave this testimony, a conspiracy existed between him and the other defendants and that the testimony was made in furtherance of the conspiracy, in which case the jury could consider the testimony as bearing upon the guilt
In oral argument before the Court of Appeals, petitioners for the first time [
] sought to link their objection to the introduction of this evidence to a particular interpretation of § 241.
481 F.2d at 694. Specifically, petitioners argued that § 241 was limited to conspiracies to cast false votes in federal elections, and did not apply to local elections. Accordingly, they contended that the conspiracy in the present case, so far as federal jurisdiction was concerned, ended on May 27, 1970, the date on which the election returns were certified and the federal returns became final. Statements made after this date by one alleged conspirator, the argument continued, could not, as a matter of law, have been made in furtherance of
The Government countered before the Court of Appeals that, whether the federal conspiracy had ended or not, the election contest testimony of Tomblin and Browning was admissible under the principles enunciated in
(1953). The Court of Appeals, however, decided not to tarry over this point, and instead, in its own words, chose "to meet directly the contention that federal jurisdiction over the alleged conspiracy ended with the certification in the federal election contests. . . ."
481 F.2d at 698. We think it inadvisable, however, to reach out in this fashion to pass on important questions of statutory construction when simpler, and more settled, grounds are available for deciding the case at hand. In our view, the basic principles of evidence and conspiracy law set down in
are dispositive of petitioners' evidentiary claims.
The doctrine that declarations of one conspirator may be used against another conspirator if the declaration was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy charged is a well recognized exception to the hearsay rule which would otherwise bar the introduction of such out-of-court declarations.
See Lutwak v. United States, supra,
344 U. S. 617
See also Krulewitch v. United States,
(1949). The hearsay conspiracy exception applies only to declarations made while the conspiracy charged was still in progress, a limitation that this Court has "scrupulously observed." [
See Krulewitch v. United States, supra,
336 U. S. 443
See also Lutwak v. United States, supra,
-618;
329 U. S. 217
371 U. S. 490
But, as the Court emphasized in
the requirement that out-of-court declarations by a conspirator be shown to have been made while the conspiracy charged was still in progress and in furtherance thereof arises only because the declaration would otherwise be hearsay. The ongoing conspiracy requirement is therefore inapplicable to evidence, such as that of
of alleged conspirators, which would not otherwise be hearsay. Thus, the Court concluded in
that acts of one alleged conspirator could be admitted into evidence against the other conspirators, if relevant to prove the existence of the conspiracy, "even though they might have occurred after the conspiracy ended." 344 U.S. at
344 U. S. 618
See also United States v. Chase,
372 F.2d 453 (CA4 1967); Note, Developments in the Law -- Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 988 (1959).
The obvious question that arises in the present case, then, is whether the out-of-court statements of Tomblin and Browning were hearsay. We think it plain they were not. Out-of court statements constitute hearsay only when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [
] The election contest testimony of Tomblin and Browning, however, was not admitted into evidence
in the § 241 trial to prove the truth of anything asserted therein. Quite the contrary, the point of the prosecutor's introducing those statements was simply to prove that the statements were made, [
] so as to establish a foundation for later showing, through other admissible evidence, that they were false. [
] The rationale of the hearsay rule is inapplicable as well. The primary justification for the exclusion of hearsay is the lack of any opportunity for the adversary to cross-examine the absent declarant whose out-of-court statement is introduced into evidence. [
] Here, since the prosecution was not contending that anything Tomblin or Browning said at the election contest was true, the other defendants had no interest in cross-examining them so as to put their credibility in issue. [
U.S. 400 (1965);
Since these prior statements were not hearsay, the jury did not have to make a preliminary finding that the conspiracy charged under § 241 was still in progress before it could consider them as evidence against the other defendants. The prior testimony was accordingly admissible simply if relevant in some way to prove the conspiracy charged.
See Lutwak v. United States,
As we read the record, there can be no doubt that the evidence of perjury by petitioners Tomblin and Browning in the election contest was relevant to make out the Government's case under § 241, even assuming,
that the petitioners' conspiracy ended, for purposes of federal jurisdiction, on May 27, 1970, with the certification of the federal election returns. For even if federal jurisdiction rested only on that aspect of the conspiracy involving the federal candidates, the proof at trial need not have been so limited. The prosecution was entitled to prove the underlying purpose and motive of the conspirators in order to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that petitioners had, in fact, unlawfully conspired to cast false votes in the election.
. As it was never suggested that either Senator Byrd or Representative Hechler needed or sought the assistance of an unlawful conspiracy in order
Petitioners argue, however, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that they had engaged in a conspiracy to cast false votes for the federal officers, and that their convictions under § 241 can stand only if we hold that section applicable to a conspiracy to cast false votes
in a local election. [
] Our examination of the record leads us to conclude otherwise.
Two principles form the backdrop for our analysis of the record. It is established that, since the gravamen of the offense under § 241 is conspiracy, the prosecution must show that the offender acted with a specific intent to interfere with the federal rights in question.
383 U. S. 753
-754 (1966);
(1945). Moreover,
we scrutinize the record for evidence of such intent with special care in a conspiracy case for, as we have indicated in a related context, "charges of conspiracy are not to be made out by piling inference upon inference, thus fashioning . . . a dragnet to draw in all substantive crimes."
Direct Sales Co. v. United States,
See also Ingram v. United States,
360 U. S. 672
360 U. S. 680
Even with these caveats in mind, we find the record amply bears out the verdict that each of the petitioners engaged in the conspiracy with the intent of having false votes cast for the federal officers. The Government's chief witness was Cecil Elswick, an unindicted coconspirator who served as the Republican election officer at the Mount Gay precinct and who actually cast most of the fraudulent votes. Elswick testified that he was first approached by petitioner Red Hager, the son of Okey Hager, who told Elswick to go along with them to win the Mount Gay precinct or else he, Red Hager, would cause Elswick trouble. When asked on direct examination for whom he was told to win the precinct, Elswick testified: "For the Okey Hager slate and Senator Byrd and Ken Hechler." App. 40. When Elswick expressed an interest in going along, Red Hager arranged for a meeting between Elswick and Tomblin at which Tomblin confirmed an offer of a part-time deputy sheriff job for Elswick as a reward for his help in the election fraud. Elswick later met with petitioner W. Bernard Smith in Tomblin's office, and Smith then instructed him on how to proceed to win the election. The night before the election, Elswick met with all five of the petitioners. At this meeting, cash payments for the false votes were discussed, and petitioners Smith and Hager emphasized the need for, putting "all the votes" on the machine. Later that evening, Elswick accompanied Tomblin to visit Garrett
Elswick then testified as to how he actually put the fraudulent votes on the machines. When a voter came into the precinct and asked for help in using the machines to vote the Neal Scaggs slate, Elswick and Mrs. Sullins would join the voter in the voting machine and, aligning their bodies so as to conceal what they were doing, would put votes on the machine for the entire Hager slate. In addition, Elswick simply went into the voting machine on his own and cast many fictitious ballots. Through a comparison between the reported returns and the number of persons who actually voted, false votes were shown to have been cast for every office -- federal, state, and local.
We think this evidence amply supported the jury's conclusion that each of the petitioners knowingly participated in a conspiracy which contemplated the casting of false votes for all offices at issue in the election. The evidence at trial tended to show a single conspiracy, the primary objective of which was to have false votes cast for Hager but which also encompassed the casting of false votes for candidates for all other offices, including Senator Byrd and Representative Hechler. True, there was little discussion among the conspirators of the federal votes
just as there was little discussion of the Hager votes in and of themselves, but the jury could believe this was only a reflection of the conspirators' underlying assumption that false votes would have to be cast for entire slates of candidates in order to have their fraud go undetected.
In our view, petitioners err in seeking to attach significance to the fact that the primary motive behind their
conspiracy was to affect the result in the local, rather than the federal, election. A single conspiracy may have several purposes, but if one of them -- whether primary or secondary -- be the violation of a federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law.
See Ingram v. United States,
360 U. S. 679
-680. It has long been settled that § 241 embraces a conspiracy to stuff the ballot box at an election for federal officers, and thereby to dilute the value of votes of qualified voters;
see United States v. Saylor,
(1915). This applies to primary as well as general elections.
See United States v. Classic,
That petitioners may have had no purpose to change the outcome of the federal election is irrelevant. The specific intent required under § 241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to have false votes cast and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice of a candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect, without being diluted or distorted by the casting of fraudulent ballots.
See United States v. Saylor, supra,
322 U. S. 386
. As one court has stated:
Prichard v. United States,
181 F.2d
326, 331 (CA6),
aff'd due to absence of quorum,
339 U.S. 974 (1950).
Every voter in a federal primary election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes. And, whatever their motive, those who conspire to cast false votes in an election for federal office conspire to injure that right within the meaning of § 241. [
While the District Court's jury instructions did not specifically focus upon the conspiracy to cast false votes for candidates for federal offices, no objection was made at trial or before the Court of Appeals with respect to this aspect of the instructions.
318 U. S. 200
398 U. S. 147
n. 2 (1970). And, even assuming,
that § 241 is limited to conspiracies to cast false votes for candidates for federal offices, we could find no plain error here. The prosecution's case, as indicated earlier, showed a single conspiracy to cast entire slates of false votes. The defense consisted in large part of a challenge to the credibility of the Government's witnesses, primarily the three unindicted coconspirators. The case therefore ultimately hinged on whether the jury would believe or disbelieve their testimony. Given the record, we think it inconceivable that, even if charged by more specific instructions, the jury could have found a conspiracy to cast false votes for local offices without finding a conspiracy to cast false votes for the federal offices as well.
The County Commissioner sits on the County Court, which is the central governmental body in the county.
See State ex rel. Dingess v. Scaggs,
___ W.Va. ___, 195 S.E.2d 724, 726 (1973).
W.Va.Code Ann., § 7-1-3
The election contest, at which candidate Hager was one of the two presiding judges, was concluded on August 25, 1970. Although the court was required by statute to rule on the contest by September 17, 1970,
W.Va.Code Ann., § 3-7-7, it failed to enter a final order within the statutory period. Scaggs appealed to an intermediate appellate court, which granted an appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, however, ruled that the intermediate appellate court lacked jurisdiction, since no decision had been rendered by the County Court within the statutory time allowed.
See State ex rel. Hager v. Oakley,
154 W.Va. 528, 177 S.E.2d 585 (1970).
Other grounds for exclusion argued before the District Court and in the briefs before the Court of Appeals have not been pursued here. These include a contention that introduction of the prior testimony had the effect of putting Tomblin and Browning on the witness stand in violation of their constitutional right to stand mute, a suggestion that, since the testimony was given in a judicial hearing there might be
problems, and the argument that the prior testimony of Tomblin and Browning was inadmissible impeachment evidence, since both had exercised their constitutional right not to testify.
481 F.2d 685, 694. .
The Court of Appeals recognized that it need not ordinarily consider grounds of objection not presented to the trial court.
(1941). This rule is not without its exceptions, however, particularly in criminal cases where appellate courts can notice errors seriously affecting the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
See United States v. Atkinson,
See also Hormel v. Helvering, supra,
. In view of the fact that petitioners did challenge the admissibility of the Tomblin and Browning testimony at trial, we think it was proper for the Court of Appeals to consider all grounds related to that, underlying objection.
The rationale for both the hearsay conspiracy exception and its limitations is the notion that conspirators are partners in crime.
310 U. S. 253
329 U. S. 216
(1946). As such, the law deems them agents of one another. And just as the declarations of an agent bind the principal only when the agent acts within the scope of his authority, so the declaration of a conspirator must be made in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in order to be admissible against his partner.
336 U. S. 442
-443 (1949);
Fiswick v. United States, supra,
4 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1077-1079 (Chadbourne rev.1972).
5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1361 (3d ed.1940); C. McCormick, Law of Evidence 460 (1954).
Of course, evidence is not hearsay when it is used only to prove that a prior statement was made, and not to prove the truth of the statement.
See Dutton v. Evans,
400 U. S. 74
400 U. S. 88
(1970) (opinion of STEWART, J.).
See also Creaghe v. Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Co.,
323 F.2d 981 (CA10 1963);
General Tire of Miami Beach, Inc. v. NLRB,
332 F.2d 58 (CA5 1964);
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Combs,
273 F.2d 295 (CA5 1960);
Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc.,
361 F.2d 874 (CA1 1966).
5 J. Wigmore,
7, at § 1362.
See also Colorificio Italiano Max Meyer, S.P.A. v. S/S Hellenic Wave,
419 F.2d 223 (CA5 1969);
Rossville Salvage Corp. v. S.E. Graham Co.,
319 F.2d 391 (CA3 1963);
Superior Engraving Co. v. NLRB,
183 F.2d 783 (CA7 1950),
340 U.S. 930 (1951).
Technically, of course, the proffered evidence was hearsay in that the Government sought to prove the prior testimony of Tomblin and Browning by reading a transcript of the election contest hearing into evidence at the § 241 trial, rather than by calling as a witness a person who himself heard the Tomblin and Browning testimony. A well recognized exception to the hearsay rule, however, permits the introduction of certified court transcripts to prove the testimony given at a prior proceeding.
7, at § 1681. Nor is there any "right of confrontation" problem here, since petitioners did not suggest below that the transcript read at the § 241 trial did not accurately reflect the testimony actually given at the election contest hearing.
In briefing this case, all parties appear to have assumed that this "sufficiency of the evidence" claim was properly before this Court. It seems clear, however, that this issue was presented neither to the Court of Appeals nor to us in the petition for a writ of certiorari. As indicated earlier, the § 241 question arose below only with respect to the admissibility of the prior testimony of Browning and Tomblin, and not in connection with any claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict under the statute. We nevertheless consider the "sufficiency of the evidence" claim here. We recognize that petitioners did raise before both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and in the petition for a writ of certiorari a claim that the indictment was unconstitutionally vague, and the gist of their argument on this point was that the Government had charged a conspiracy to cast false votes for both federal and local candidates in order to survive a motion to dismiss the indictment, but had turned around at trial and proved only a conspiracy to cast false votes for the local candidates. This argument therefore raised the substance of petitioners' present contention that the evidence was insufficient to show a conspiracy to cast false votes for federal candidates. Moreover, as we have had occasion to note, a claim that a conviction is based on a record lacking any evidence relevant to crucial elements of the offense is a claim with serious constitutional overtones.
See, e.g., Thompson v. Louisville,
(1966). Accordingly, even though the "sufficiency of the evidence" issue was not raised below with any particularity, we think the interests of justice require its consideration here.
325 U. S. 107
Cf. Lawn v. United States,
355 U. S. 362
n. 16 (1958).
The indictment further specifies that it was a part of the conspiracy "to cause fraudulent and fictitious votes to be cast in said precinct. . . ." Pet. for Cert. 3b. We think it plain that the indictment gave petitioners adequate notice of the specific charges against them. We also note, and petitioners themselves concede, that the form of the indictment was similar to those used in other § 241 prosecutions.
United States v. Kantor,
78 F.2d 710 (CA2 1935);
93 F.2d 383 (CA8 1937);
Ledford v. United States,
155 F.2d 574 (CA6),
329 U.S. 733 (1946).
Petitioners were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 241, which imposes criminal penalties when "two or more persons conspire to injure . . . any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution. . . ." The Court of Appeals affirmed, 481 F.2d 685, and this Court granted certiorari to consider whether a conspiracy to cast fraudulent votes in a state election, without any evidence of racial discrimination, could constitute a federal offense under § 241. The Court of Appeals reached the substance of this question, holding that the Federal Government had the power under 241 to punish not only conspiracies to poison federal elections, but also conspiracies in which state officials took
part to cast false votes in a state or local election. 481 F.2d at 698-700. The Court today avoids the issue squarely presented by petitioners and by the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that it need not reach the issue because the evidence "bears out the verdict that each of the petitioners engaged in the conspiracy with the intent of having false votes cast for . . . federal officers."
On May 12, 1970, a primary election was held in West Virginia for the purpose of nominating candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives and for various state and local offices, including that of County Commissioner for Logan County. The incumbent Commissioner,
As the Court notes, a stringent
requirement has been imposed when the Government seeks to prosecute under § 241, requiring proof of "specific intent" on the part of a conspirator to interfere with a right protected by § 241. [
] This standard has required proof that a conspirator acted "in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite," [
] in this case, the right to have votes cast in a federal election counted without impairment by fraudulent votes. It is against this exacting standard of specific intent that the actions of each of the conspirators in this case must be measured.
From the first, the prosecution in this case proceeded on the theory that casting false votes for state offices
The case was tried on the theory that petitioners conspired to secure the nomination of Okey Hager for County Commissioner. There is substantial evidence on the record to demonstrate the existence of this conspiracy, and petitioners necessarily contemplated having false votes cast in the local election to secure Okey Hager's nomination. There is also evidence that Cecil Elswick and others who were at the polling place during the election did, in fact, cast false votes for federal candidates. There is also evidence that one of the petitioners, Red Hager, did tell Elswick to cast false votes not only for Okey Hager, but also for Senator Byrd and Representative Hechler, candidates running for federal offices. But there
is no conclusive evidence in nearly 2,000 pages of transcript that any of the other four petitioners agreed, either with Elswick or with each other, to cast fraudulent votes for the federal candidates. [
In its charge to the jury, the trial court reinforced this crucial error. In its instructions, reprinted in relevant
Appendix to this opinion, the Court never required the jury to find a specific intent to have false votes cast in the
election contests on the part of each of the conspirators. Throughout its instructions to the jury, the District Court reiterated that the crucial element of the charged crime under § 241 was a conspiracy to
At no time was the jury told that specific intent to have false votes cast for the
candidates was necessary for conviction of each of the conspirators; it was enough that the "right to vote" was diluted and that "illegal ballots" were cast to injure "voting rights," without distinction between federal and state elections. As long as the jury accepted the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, conviction under these instructions was inevitable, even for those petitioners who were not shown by any
While trial counsel did not object to the form of the instructions, where an error is so fundamental that the instruction does not properly submit to the jury the essential elements of the charged offense, there is plain error, and the interests of justice and fair play demand that we take note.
See Fisher v. United States,
328 U. S. 467
(opinion of DOUGLAS, J.); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(b).
"we think it
that, even if charged by more specific instructions, the jury could have found a conspiracy to cast false votes for local offices without finding a conspiracy to cast false votes for the federal offices as well."
I cannot agree with this crucial assumption. The gravamen of a conspiracy charge is agreeing with the intent of achieving a certain proscribed objective. "[I]t is . . . essential to determine what kind of agreement or understanding existed as to
United States v. Borelli,
336 F.2d 376, 384 (Friendly, J.) (emphasis added);
Note, Developments in the Law -- Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 929-930. When it is not shown that the unlawful objectives of one individual have been adopted by another, the latter cannot be found to have agreed to achieve the objectives and a conspiracy count to do so cannot be sustained.
354 U. S. 329
The evidence in this case, as the prosecutor observed in closing argument, demonstrated that petitioners focused
their attention on the contest for County Commissioner. There is no conclusive evidence that the casting of fraudulent federal ballots was, in fact, necessary to petitioners' scheme to abscond with the local nomination contest, or that petitioners thought it necessary. There is no proof that a lower quantum of votes for the federal candidates would have aroused suspicion, or that petitioners felt that it would. [
] Ballot splitting, with disparate numbers of votes cast for the various offices, was prevalent at this election. [
] The nominations for County Commissioner and other local offices were closely contested, while the federal nominations were not, so that there would naturally be more votes cast in the local races. [
] And even if we assume that a sophisticated conspirator would have considered it necessary to stuff the federal ballot box in order to conceal fraud in the state election, we simply cannot presume that the petitioners did also. The record reveals an unsophisticated, bludgeon-like effort to win the election for Okey Hager, with minimal preliminary attention to the niceties of covering up the fraud. When there is no conclusive evidence that the need to cast fraudulent federal votes even crossed the minds of four of the five petitioners,
The slenderness of the reed on which the Court's affirmance of these convictions rests is demonstrated by its assertions that the jury "could believe" that the lack of discussion of federal ballots only reflected an "assumption" by petitioners that such ballots would have to be cast, and that the jury "could have inferred" that petitioners were motivated by the need to cast false federal ballots to conceal fraudulent local votes. But whether the jury "could have inferred" or "could [have] believe[d]" that there was sufficient proof of specific intent to cast false federal ballots in the evidence in this case misses the point, because the jury was never required to make this finding in order to convict. The jury verdict is not to be accorded its traditional sanctity when it is premised on erroneous instructions.
See Burton v. United States,
202 U. S. 373
-374. The jury has never passed on the question of petitioners' intent while guided by proper instructions. While circumstantial evidence may lead a jury to infer specific intent to interfere with a right protected by § 241, the weighing of the evidence should be the jury's task, not that of this Court. There was, in fact, no "verdict" that petitioners conspired to have false votes cast in the federal election, and the sparse circumstantial evidence in this case makes it impossible for me to conclude, as does the Court, that such a verdict was inevitable, so that the error in jury instructions was harmless. At the very least, justice requires that this case be remanded for a new trial.
Because I cannot agree that the evidence showed that petitioners necessarily conspired with the specific intent of having false votes cast for federal candidates, I could
The Court of Appeals determined that § 241 did reach such conspiracies. It noted that the language of the section sweeps broadly to guarantee "
any right or privilege secured . . . by the Constitution or laws of the United States,'" 481 F.2d at 699, and also that
, stated that § 241 proscribed conspiracies to violate Fourteenth Amendment rights, including those protected from interference under color of law by the Equal Protection Clause. One such right only recently defined, reasoned the Court of Appeals, is the right not to have valid votes cast in state elections diluted by those acting under color of state law, including local election officials such as those involved in the instant conspiracy, citing
. Thus, in the view of the Court of Appeals, a conspiracy to cast fraudulent ballots in which state election officials took part resulted in a denial of equal protection under color of state law and stated a crime under § 241, even if the conspiracy did not encompass a federal election. 481 F.2d at 698-700.
Section 241 was originally passed as § 6 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 141. The Enforcement Act was a comprehensive body of legislation passed two
What is now § 241 was offered as an amendment by Senator Pool of North Carolina, who referred in introducing the amendment to "rights which are conferred upon the citizen by the fourteenth amendment." Cong.Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 3611. But there is no proof that he conceived of the possibility that the amendment could reach local election fraud where there was no racial discrimination. [
] On the other hand, the rest of the legislative history of the Enforcement Act demonstrates that Congress, in adopting Pool's amendment, could not have intended to reach such frauds, because it did not believe that it had that power.
Because the Enforcement Act of 1870 was concerned primarily with suffrage, there is ample legislative history elucidating the reach of congressional power regarding both federal and local elections. The constitutional power to pass those sections of the Act which purported to deal with the right to vote in local elections was perceived to flow from the Fifteenth Amendment, [
] which protected the right to vote from infringement only "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Even the staunchest supporters of the Act conceded that, absent the critical element of racial discrimination, the Act could not reach local elections. The following colloquy,
for example, occurred between Senator Edmunds of Vermont, one of two Senate floor managers of the Act,
at 3753, and Senator Morton of Indiana another supporter of the Act. While interference with local elections could be punished if racial discrimination, against either white or black, was extant, local election fraud could not otherwise be reached by federal jurisdiction:
In the course of debate, Senator Sherman of Ohio, another ardent advocate of the Act, proposed an amendment to add three sections to it. These sections, which were adopted with slight changes as §§ 19, 20, and 21, were designed to deal with frauds not involving racial discrimination, but only in
elections. Senator Sherman's comments express the desire not to "invade the right of any state,"
at 3664, to control its own elections and reflect the belief that an element of racial bias was considered a necessary precondition to congressional power to deal with state elections. Federal elections for Senators and Congressmen could be governed absent such bias, but only by virtue of the express authority of Art. I, § 4, of the Constitution. [
] In describing
Cong.Globe, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., 1274.
at 1284. [
The broad language of
does not authorize us to draw any other conclusion.
involved racial discrimination and rights under the Equal Protection Clause "firmly and precisely established by a consistent line of decisions in this Court." 383 U.S. at
383 U. S. 754
. That is not true of the right to be free from fraud without any racial connotation in local elections. In
we noted the sparse legislative history of § 241 as part of the Enforcement Act, and held that there was no indication that Congress did not intend it to reach the Fourteenth Amendment right in question, the right to due process. 383 U.S., at
. We noted that the application of § 241 in that case "does not raise fundamental questions of federal-state relationships."
383 U. S. 806
. Those facts are not present in this case. There is legislative history which indicates that Congress did not intend to reach local election frauds in passing § 241, because it did not believe that it had that power. And the decision of the Court of Appeals reaches to the very heart of federal-state relations, permitting federal intrusion in even the most local election, intrusions which the 41st Congress attempted to avoid when passing the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Force Act of 1871.
While the civil protections of the Fourteenth Amendment reach state elections even where there is no racial animus, criminal laws such as 18 U.S.C.§ 241 must be strictly construed, and we have required that Congress "plainly and unmistakably" assert federal criminal jurisdiction over an activity.
. Here, Congress did not plainly intend § 241 to reach local elections frauds, and apparently intended quite the opposite.
United States v. Bass, supra,
The indictment in this case charges in substance that, beginning on or about the 1st day of May, 1970, and continuing until on or about the date of the indictment, the defendants unlawfully, willfully and knowingly conspired with each other and with other persons who are both known and unknown to the grand jury, to injure and oppress
The indictment in this case states that the defendants caused false and fictitious votes to be cast and counted, and that casting and counting such votes violates the laws of the State of West Virginia. With regard to whether or not casting and counting false and fictitious votes or causing them to be cast and counted violates West Virginia law, you are further instructed that the laws of the
The Court further tells you that intent is an essential element of this offense. You are therefore charged that, before you can convict the defendants, or any of them, you must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant or defendants deliberately and with knowledge conspired with others to injure certain qualified voters in the free exercise and enjoyment of their right of suffrage.
-754;
383 U. S. 785
-786 (BRENNAN, J., concurring and dissenting);
341 U. S. 93
-95 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting);
-107 (opinion of DOUGLAS, J.).
325 U. S. 105
see United States v. Price, supra,
Senator Pool's remarks are reprinted in full in the appendix to
383 U. S. 807
Cong.Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 3503 (Rep. Bingham);
at 3559 (Sen. Stewart);
at 3564 (Sen. Pool);
at 3567 (Sen. Stockton).
at 3663-3664.
the remarks of Representative Lawrence of Ohio: