Opinion ID: 341470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Meaning of Screws

Text: 31 Although some of the language in Screws can be read more broadly, its holding essentially sets forth two requirements for a finding of specific intent under section 242. The first is a purely legal determination. Is the constitutional right at issue clearly delineated and plainly applicable under the circumstances of the case? If the trial judge concludes that it is, then the jury must make the second, factual, determination. Did the defendant commit the act in question with the particular purpose of depriving the citizen victim of his enjoyment of the interests protected by that federal right? If both requirements are met, even if the defendant did not in fact recognize the unconstitutionality of his act, he will be adjudged as a matter of law to have acted willfully i. e., in reckless disregard of constitutional prohibitions or guarantees. 32 These specific intent requirements, grafted by the Supreme Court onto the elements of a section 242 violation, met the Court's twin concerns of vagueness and federalism in Screws. On the one hand, the requirement that the constitutional right in question be clearly established provides the specificity needed for a criminal statute to meet minimal standards of due process. On the other hand, the requirement that the defendant have a purpose to infringe federally protected interests preserves the states' traditional prerogative to prosecute and punish those who commit ordinary crime. For example, as Screws illustrates, the Constitution clearly grants protection to a citizen's interests in not being punished by governmental officials without a trial. There is no violation of section 242, however, if a sheriff and his deputies commit a murder for purely personal, nongovernmental reasons. The state can, and should, deal with such crime. Section 242 comes into play only if the object of the murder was to punish a prisoner for past illegal acts, or for some other purpose stemming from the official position of those committing the homicide. 33 The same principles apply to prosecutions for conspiracy under section 241. Although the language of sections 241 and 242 is somewhat different indeed, section 241 does not contain the word willfully 35 the Supreme Court has made clear since Screws that the specific intent requirements of section 242 are equally applicable (or derivatively applicable) to section 241. 36 In United States v. Guest, 37 decided in 1966, the Court reversed the dismissal of an indictment charging the defendants with violating section 241 by, inter alia, conspiring to intimidate blacks in the free exercise of the right of interstate travel. The Court observed, first, that the rights of equal utilization of public facilities and freedom of travel had been firmly established and repeatedly recognized; therefore, the requirement of constitutional clarity presented no difficulty. 38 Second, the Court noted with reference to the right to travel that under Screws not every criminal conspiracy which incidentally interfered with that right is prohibited by section 241. A conspiracy to rob a private person who happens to be traveling interstate, for example, would not violate section 241, because it would entail no purpose to invade federally protected interests. 39 On remand, therefore, the Court found that the prosecution would have to show the defendants conspired to intimidate an individual because he was traveling interstate. 40 34 39. Attorneys General in certain circumstances have permitted warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance involving a technical trespass solely for the purpose of placing a bug. 35 Most recently, in Anderson v. United States, 41 decided in 1974, the Court reaffirmed and further elucidated the specific intent requirements of section 241. Since the constitutional right in question was the right to an equal vote in a federal election, the defendants convicted of casting false votes could not be assailed on the ground that the federal interests involved were not clear and firmly established. 42 Rather, the main issue was whether an intent to invade those federal interests had been proven, in view of the fact that the primary objective of the conspiracy was to influence a local election even though false votes had been cast for candidates for federal office as well. The Court found adequate evidence of specific intent, concluding: 36 A single conspiracy may have several purposes but if one of them whether primary or secondary be the violation of federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. 37 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 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. 43 38 Screws and its progeny thus compel the conclusion that the specific intent required to violate section 241 is the purpose of the conspirators to commit acts which deprive a citizen of interests in fact protected by clearly defined constitutional rights. If that purpose was present, there is no good faith defense, such as Ehrlichman proffers, because of lack of awareness of the conspirators at the time they commit the proscribed acts that they are violating constitutional rights. There is no requirement under section 241 that a defendant recognize the unlawfulness of his acts. 39 It should be added here that there is also no support for Ehrlichman's position in any of the recognized common law exceptions to the mistake of law doctrine, which are developed more fully in our opinions in the companion decision on Barker and Martinez. Ehrlichman's reliance on Pierson v. Ray 44 is misplaced. In Pierson the Supreme Court held that a police officer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unlawful arrest could raise as a defense his reliance on a statute which he reasonably believed to be valid but which was later held unconstitutional. Assuming arguendo that an analogous defense should be made available in a criminal case, 45 it still cannot avail the defendant here. As is detailed in Subpart II.B., infra, the violation of the Fourth Amendment in this case was clear. Ehrlichman cannot and does not argue that he should be allowed a defense based upon his reasonable reliance on an apparently valid statute or judicial decision, nor does his invocation of the claimed foreign affairs exception to the warrant requirement avail him, for even the claim of a foreign affairs exception has consistently been conditioned on specific approval by the President or the Attorney General. Ehrlichman was himself a high government official. He does not contend that specific judicial or Presidential approval was obtained for the Fielding break-in. He simply asserts that it was his belief that the break-in was lawful notwithstanding the absence of any such specific approval. Such a mistake of law can be no defense. Neither Pierson nor any other authority countenances an exception to the mistake of law doctrine in such a situation. 40 It still remains to determine whether the instructions the court gave the jury met the two-pronged test of specific intent laid down in Screws. We turn now to this inquiry. 41