United States v. Feola
Encyclopedia
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671
(1975) is a United States Supreme Court
case in which the court held that conspiracy
to assault
a federal officer, like the substantive crime of assaulting a federal officer, doesn't require knowledge that the victims were federal officers.
The case involved a drug "rip-off" in which the defendant and his co-conspirators agreed to sell sugar as heroin to unsuspecting buyers. They agreed that if the buyers discovered their ruse, they would jump the buyers and take their money. The sellers didn't know that the buyers were all undercover federal narcotics agents. Although the sellers tried to assault one of the agents, another agent pulled out his revolver and the agents eventually arrested the sellers.
The court's opinion addressed—and eventually dispensed with—Judge Learned Hand
's famous analogy in United States v. Crimmins
123 F.2d 271, 273 (2d Cir. 1941). Hand noted that conspiracy to commit mail fraud was akin to conspiracy to run a red light - both substantive crimes don't require knowledge beforehand. But agreement or conspiracy requires knowledge that there is such a red light, or that the mails will be used. The Court characterized this analogy as "effective prose...[but]...bad law." 420, at 689-90. The court argued that conspiracy agreements don't require agreement on every point of the crime, and so imposing a higher agreement requirement for a conspiracy to assault was illogical in light of the policy reasons for criminalizing conspiracy. The court identified these reasons as protecting society from concerted criminal activity and the social threat posed even by an inchoate crime
.
Instead the court reasoned that because the conspiracy statute didn't require a higher mens rea than the substantive crime, the same mens rea requirement applies to both by default. The court reasoned that one purpose of the assault statute was to provide a federal forum (specific jurisdiction) for assaults on federal officers. Therefore conspiracy to assault a federal officer didn't require proof that the defendant knew that his intended victim was a federal officer.
Justice Potter Stewart
dissented, arguing that the structure of the assault statute and legislative history of its predecessor supported his interpretation that the statute only applied if the defendant knew his victim was a federal officer.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1975) is a United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case in which the court held that conspiracy
Conspiracy (crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...
to assault
Assault
In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more...
a federal officer, like the substantive crime of assaulting a federal officer, doesn't require knowledge that the victims were federal officers.
The case involved a drug "rip-off" in which the defendant and his co-conspirators agreed to sell sugar as heroin to unsuspecting buyers. They agreed that if the buyers discovered their ruse, they would jump the buyers and take their money. The sellers didn't know that the buyers were all undercover federal narcotics agents. Although the sellers tried to assault one of the agents, another agent pulled out his revolver and the agents eventually arrested the sellers.
The court's opinion addressed—and eventually dispensed with—Judge Learned Hand
Learned Hand
Billings Learned Hand was a United States judge and judicial philosopher. He served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...
's famous analogy in United States v. Crimmins
United States v. Crimmins
United States v. Crimmins 123 F.2d 271 was a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals about conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Judge Learned Hand wrote the court's opinion. Hand reasoned that conspiracy to commit mail fraud required a higher mens rea -- purpose instead of reasonable...
123 F.2d 271, 273 (2d Cir. 1941). Hand noted that conspiracy to commit mail fraud was akin to conspiracy to run a red light - both substantive crimes don't require knowledge beforehand. But agreement or conspiracy requires knowledge that there is such a red light, or that the mails will be used. The Court characterized this analogy as "effective prose...[but]...bad law." 420, at 689-90. The court argued that conspiracy agreements don't require agreement on every point of the crime, and so imposing a higher agreement requirement for a conspiracy to assault was illogical in light of the policy reasons for criminalizing conspiracy. The court identified these reasons as protecting society from concerted criminal activity and the social threat posed even by an inchoate crime
Inchoate offense
An inchoate offense, inchoate offence, or inchoate crime is the crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is conspiracy...
.
Instead the court reasoned that because the conspiracy statute didn't require a higher mens rea than the substantive crime, the same mens rea requirement applies to both by default. The court reasoned that one purpose of the assault statute was to provide a federal forum (specific jurisdiction) for assaults on federal officers. Therefore conspiracy to assault a federal officer didn't require proof that the defendant knew that his intended victim was a federal officer.
Justice Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
dissented, arguing that the structure of the assault statute and legislative history of its predecessor supported his interpretation that the statute only applied if the defendant knew his victim was a federal officer.
Source
- Stephen A. Saltzburg, et al. Criminal Law-Cases and Materials (2008, Third Ed.) Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. pp 752–53.
External links
- Full text of the Court's decision courtesy of Findlaw.com