Opinion ID: 361114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Counts V-VIII

Text: 26 Defendants claim that Counts V-VIII under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 do not charge facts constituting an offense against the United States because they do not allege in what way the alleged false statements were material, in what way were they false, or in what way they were made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (Br. 12). However, an indictment need state only the essential facts constituting the offense charged (Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). These counts each alleged that defendants caused the issuance of false and incorrect inspection and weight certificates which under 7 U.S.C. §§ 244 and 252 was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The materiality of the false statements was adequately shown because the grand jury charged that the certificates purported to show the true and accurate inspection and grade of the grain represented thereby while defendants knew the inspection and grade were false. What could be more material and substantial (cf. defendants' Br. 18) than to cause inspector Gunder to falsify both the inspection and grade on the certificates as charged in Counts V-VIII? The materiality of the false statements is self-apparent because these sophisticated defendants would know that the falsified grade, percentage of moisture, foreign material, weight and damage stated in these certificates would determine the amount paid for the grain by Central Soya Company, the storage conditions and processing to which it would be subjected and possibly the resale price (see E. g., Tr. 32, 46-47). Further particularity in the indictment was unnecessary. United States v. Satterfield, 411 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Silver, 235 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1956), certiorari denied, 352 U.S. 880, 77 S.Ct. 102, 1 L.Ed.2d 80. 27