finding that one count alleging a conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit various substantive offenses was not duplicitous because the conspiracy allegations were specific
How later courts described this case
- finding that one count alleging a conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit various substantive offenses was not duplicitous because the conspiracy allegations were specific
- holding that Section 371 is “broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government”
- describing indictment alleging two conspiracies: (1) to bribe a federal employee to cause the Department of Agriculture to issue false cotton crop reports, and (2
- reviewing jurisdictional basis for indictment, which alleged that defendants sought to obtain confidential government reports from a public official, who violated an official duty in disclosing them
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Tajideen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 445 (2018)
Primarily, the defendant contends that Haas and Hammerschmidt are inapposite because "ft]he 'lawful function' language was [ ] not essential to the [defendants'] facial validity [challenge] of the indictment[s].
The opinion
Brewer, J.,
concurring.
I concur in affirming the orders of removal in these cases, but my concurrence must not be taken as holding that the indictments will stand the final test of validity or sufficiency. Assuming that there is a doubt in respect to these matters, as. I think there is, and as seems to be suggested by the opinion in No. 367, I am of the opinion that such doubt should be *483 settled by direct action in the court in which the indictments were returned and not in removal proceedings.
Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result, but reserves opinion whether the facts alleged in the indictment constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States.