Court Opinion

ID: 9457928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:38:29.049713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:34.824886
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
In Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103-07, (1945), the Supreme Court construed 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 to require proof that the defendant acted with the specific intent and purpose to deprive the particular complainant of a constitutional right “made definite by decision or other rule of law. ...” Here the majority upholds the district court finding that defendant had such a specific intent and purpose. However, as the district court itself indicated, the testimony suggested that the defendant, aroused by the relentless and circuitous automobile chase, acted “in the passion of anger.” In my view, such evidence does not permit the conclusion that the defendant possessed “some specialized knowledge or design or some evil beyond the common law intent to do injury.” Morrissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 265 (1952). A strict evaluation of the evidence is necessary if federal prosecutions under § 242 are not to swallow up state and local criminal law.