United States v. Young (1914)

Last updated

United States v. Young
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 8, 1914
Decided January 26, 1914
Full case nameUnited States v. Young
Citations232 U.S. 155 ( more )
34 S.Ct. 303
Holding
The Criminal Code of 1909 does not require indictments for mail fraud to show that the fraudulent mailed statements were directly shown to the defrauded party
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Horace H. Lurton
Charles E. Hughes  · Willis Van Devanter
Joseph R. Lamar  · Mahlon Pitney
Case opinion
MajorityMcKenna, joined by unanimous

United States v. Young, 232 U.S. 155(1914), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Criminal Code of 1909 does not require indictments for mail fraud to show that the fraudulent mailed statements were directly shown to the defrauded party.

Contents

Background

Codification

In the early history of the United States, the federal government lacked a formal codification of its laws. Instead, lawyers relied on the Library of Congress, which publishes a new volume of United States Statutes at Large at the end of each two-year session of Congress to compile all newly passed acts and resolutions. However, searching through the Statutes at Large is cumbersome because its contents are organized by their date of passage, rather than topic area. [1]

In 1874, Congress published the Revised Statutes of the United States , codifying all federal law as of December 1873. However, beyond an update in 1878 to include revisions as of March 1877, the Revised Statutes failed to capture new updates in federal law. [1]

Until the 1926 approval of the United States Code, which maintains an up-to-date codification of federal law, Congress instead enacted topic-specific codifications like the Criminal Code of 1909 and the Judicial Code of 1911. As a result, many judges and lawyers would rely on the West Publishing Company's Compiled Statutes of the United States , a privately prepared codification of all federal law published in 1901 and re-published in 1913. [1]

District Court

On May 5, 1911, the defendant used his position as President of the Southern Hardware Supply Company in Mobile County, Alabama, to defraud the New York City-based firm Hollingshead and Campbell. Young used the United States mail to sent false statements that overstated his company's assets, successfully convincing Hollingshead and Campbell to persuade other companies into offering loans to the Southern Hardware Supply Company. [2]

When considered by the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the federal indictments against Young were deemed insufficient for not directly alleging that the fraudulent mailed statements were shown to the defrauded parties. [2]

Supreme Court

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in reversing the District Court's judgement Justice McKenna.jpg
Associate Justice Joseph McKenna wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in reversing the District Court's judgement

Under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, the United States government could petition the Supreme Court for a writ of error whenever any lower federal court issued a decision that prevented "a judgement of conviction for insufficiency of the indictment, where such decision is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded." [3]

In a unanimous decision written by Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, the Supreme Court agreed with Solicitor General John W. Davis that the District Court erred in claiming that an indictment for mail fraud would have required Hollingshead and Campbell to use the false statements mailed by Young in their negotiations with other firms. [2] The Supreme Court held that the District Court improperly relied upon a higher standard for indictment based on an 1889 act codified in the Compiled Statutes, rather than using the broader provisions found in the Criminal Code of 1909, which merely require that the scheme to defraud others uses the mail. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Code</span> Codification of U.S. federal statutes

The United States Code is the official codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. It contains 53 titles, which are organized into numbered sections.

In law, codification is the process of collecting and restating the law of a jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject, forming a legal code, i.e. a codex (book) of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968</span> US federal legislation

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was legislation passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson that established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Title III of the Act set rules for obtaining wiretap orders in the United States. The act was a major accomplishment of Johnson's war on crime.

In the United States, state law refers to the law of each separate U.S. state.

Mail fraud and wire fraud are terms used in the United States to describe the use of a physical or electronic mail system to defraud another, and are U.S. federal crimes. Jurisdiction is claimed by the federal government if the illegal activity crosses interstate or international borders.

<i>United States Statutes at Large</i> Official record of Acts of Congress and concurrent resolutions

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., are an official record of Acts of Congress and concurrent resolutions passed by the United States Congress.

SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud in the United States. It was promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), pursuant to its authority granted under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The issue of insider trading is given further definition in SEC Rule 10b5-1.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement to constitute an offense. There is no limit to the number participating in the conspiracy, and in most countries the plan itself is the crime, so there is no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.

Making false statements is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honest services fraud</span> Crime in the United States

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988. The idea of this law was to criminalize not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal statute criminalizing mail fraud applied only to the schemes and artifices defrauding victims of money or property, as opposed to those defrauding citizens of their rights to good government. The case was superseded one year later when the United States Congress amended the law to specifically include honest services fraud in the mail and wire fraud statutes.

<i>United States v. LaMacchia</i>

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) began in the 1970s. "Although none of these statutes was enacted in order to prosecute official corruption, each has been interpreted to provide a means to do so." The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd, and the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666 directly address public corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1790</span> US bill

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1825</span> U.S. federal law

The Crimes Act of 1825, formally titled An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was the first piece of omnibus federal criminal legislation since the Crimes Act of 1790. In general, the 1825 act provided more punishment than the 1790 act. The maximum authorized sentence of imprisonment was increased from 7 to 10 years; the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But, the punishments of stripes and pillory were not provided for.

Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal law and procedure. By a 5–4 margin it upheld the mail fraud conviction of an Illinois man and resolved a conflict among the appellate circuits over which test to use to determine if a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction allowing conviction on a lesser included charge. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority; Antonin Scalia for the dissent.

Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The statute originated under a federal law enacted in 1867 that was codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States in 1874, in a subsequent codification of federal penal statutes in 1909, and ultimately in the United States Code in 1948. The crime is that of two or more persons who conspire to commit an offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States.

The Code of the District of Columbia is the codification of the general and permanent laws relating to the District of Columbia. It was enacted and is revised by authority of the Congress of the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Mallory, John A. (1914). Compiled Statutes of the United States. Vol. 1. West Publishing Company.
  2. 1 2 3 United States v. Young,232U.S.155(S.Ct.26 January 1914).
  3. Criminal Appeals Act (Pub. L. 59-223). Stat. Vol. 34. March 2, 1907. 1246.
  4. An Act to Codify, Revise, and Amend the Penal Laws of the United States (Pub. L. 60-350). Stat. Vol. 35. March 4, 1909. 1088.