United States v. States

488 F.2d 761 (1973)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A multiple count indictment charged Ds with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342, and with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Ds devised a scheme to defraud the voters and residents of the third and nineteenth wards of the City of St. Louis and the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis by the use of fraudulent voter registrations and applications for absentee ballots. It is alleged that the purpose of the scheme to defraud was to influence the outcome of the election of the Republican Committeeman for the nineteenth ward and the Democratic Committeeman for the third ward 'for the purpose of securing and controlling said political offices and the political influence and financial benefits of said offices * * *.' Ds submitted false and fraudulent voter registration affidavits bearing the names of false and fictitious persons with false addresses and caused the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners to place absentee ballots for the fictitious persons in an authorized depository for mail matter. States (D) was a candidate in 1972 for the office of Democratic Committeeman from the third ward and Morgan (D) was a candidate for Republican Committeeman from the nineteenth ward. Morgan (D) obtained blank affidavits, and campaign workers began filling in the affidavits with fictitious names and addresses. States (D) was invited to join the operation in order to benefit his own campaign, and he agreed. Ds then applied for absentee ballots in the names of the phantom voters whose names appeared on the falsified voter registration affidavits. A mailing address accessible to Ds was listed on each absentee ballot application. The appellants planned to retrieve the ballots, mark them, and then return them to the election board for counting. The action of the Postal Service foiled the operation, and the appellants were subsequently indicted. The mail carrier for those routes knew that those people did not live on his route. Ds argue that the first phrase of § 1341, dealing with 'any scheme or artifice to defraud,' must be read in conjunction with the second phrase, concerning 'obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,' which was added to the statute by a subsequent amendment. Ds argue that the explicit 'money or property' limitation in the added passage reveals that Congress believed that the first phrase in the original legislation dealt only with schemes to defraud of money or property.