United States v. James E. Williams

Fifth Circuit

United States v. James E. Williams

474 F.2d 1047, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1973

DocketNo 72-3119

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 474 F.2d 1047 (United States v. James E. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. James E. Williams, 474 F.2d 1047, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11351 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James E. Williams was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 under an indictment alleging a conspiracy (a) to defraud the United States Government by stealing, forging, and negotiating United States Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and (b) to steal state welfare checks from the United States mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. Williams contends on appeal that the government failed to prove either that the conspirators stole and forged Treasury checks or that the state welfare checks which were cashed were stolen from the mails.

To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the prosecution must demonstrate an unlawful agreement and at least one independent act in furtherance of the agreement. It need not show that the conspirators committed the substantive crime which is charged in the indictment as the object of the conspiracy. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 334, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1084, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356, 1384 (1957). Nor is it necessary to substantiate each of the overt acts al *1048 leged in the indictment. Bradford v. United States, 413 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969).

Assuming arguendo that the evidence in the present case was insufficient to establish the specific violations of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and 18 U.S.C. § 1708 alleged in the indictment, it was amply sufficient to establish both the conspiracy alleged and numerous overt acts in furtherance of that unlawful agreement.

The appellant’s conviction is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

James E. Williams was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 under an indictment alleging a conspiracy (a) to defraud the United States Government by stealing, forging, and negotiating United States Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and (b) to steal state welfare checks from the United States mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. Williams contends on appeal that the government failed to prove either that the conspirators stole and forged Treasury checks or that the state welfare checks which were cashed were stolen from the mails.

To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the prosecution must demonstrate an unlawful agreement and at least one independent act in furtherance of the agreement. It need not show that the conspirators committed the substantive crime which is charged in the indictment as the object of the conspiracy. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 334, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1084, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356, 1384 (1957). Nor is it necessary to substantiate each of the overt acts al *1048 leged in the indictment. Bradford v. United States, 413 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969).

Assuming arguendo that the evidence in the present case was insufficient to establish the specific violations of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and 18 U.S.C. § 1708 alleged in the indictment, it was amply sufficient to establish both the conspiracy alleged and numerous overt acts in furtherance of that unlawful agreement.

The appellant’s conviction is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F.2d 1047, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-e-williams-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack