United States v. Mitchell

26 F. Cas. 1283, 1 Hughes 439

• Court: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina
• Decided: November 15, 1871
• Status: Published

Opinion

BOND. Circuit Judge

(charging jury). Xou have listened with patience to the recital of the evidence in this cause, and without commenting upon that, the court proposes to state to you the law applicable to the evidence, which must guide you in making up your verdict. The indictment, gentlemen, is for a conspiracy, which is an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful thing, or to do a lawful thing by unlawful means. The thing to be punished is the unlawful conspiracy, and not the particular acts done in pursuance ot it. The conspiracy is a-crime, if nothing be done in pursuance of it. The indictment, gentlemen, contains two counts. The first charges the defendant and others, jointly indicted with him, with having conspired to violate the first section of the act of May 31st, 1870. by unlawfully hindering, preventing, and restraining a certain class of persons therein named from the future exercise of the right to vote at an election to take place in October, 1872, on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And the second count charges that he, with others, did conspire to injure, because of his color, James Williams, because he had exercised the right to vote previously. It is to these counts that you are to refer the evidence, and to apply the law which the court gives you. If you find, from the evidence, that there was no such conspiracy as that described in the first count, or if there was a conspiracy, the object of which and its purpose were different from that set forth in the count, and that the object and purpose set forth in the count was not one of its purposes and objects, then the party charged is not guilty under the first count, though he may have been engaged in the conspiracy. But it is not necessary, if the jury find there was a conspiracy, and that the party was engaged in it, that they should find its purpose to have been single. If th-.y find that one of its purposes was that set forth in the first count, to prevent citizens from the exercise of the right to vote because of their color, it is sufficient. An association having such a purpose is an unlawful conspiracy, and a party engaged in it may be punished under the first count.

Each member of such an association is a conspirator, and is responsible, personally, for every act of the conspiracy, and for the acts of each member thereof, done by common consent. in furtherance of its illegal purposes, and also for such acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy not consented to beforehand, if assented to subsequently to their perpetration, and that whether the party charged was himself actually present or not when such act was done. And if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the various Klans spoken of by the witnesses, were but parts of one general conspiracy, this rule applies not only to the members of the same Klan, but to the acts and conduct of the members of the different Klans done in furtherance of the conspiracy. And it makes no difference in guilt if you find from the evidence that the motive of a party who joined the conspiracy was not illegal when he did join it, if you also find, that after he became a member, he was aware of the fact, or had reason to know, that the true object of tne conspiracy was to prevent or hinder the free exercise of the elective franchise by intimidation or violence, as aforesaid, on account of color, and that he still remained a member and participated in its meetings, and that, though you may also find he never himself actually used the force, intimidation; or violence, and was not present when it was used.

And now, if the jury find, from the evidence, that the party charged did so conspire to prevent the citizens described from exercising their right to vote on account of their color, at a future election, specified to be the election to take place on the third Wednesday of October, 1872, then the party charged is guilty under the first count of the indictment. And if the jury find, from the evidence, that they did so conspire, and for the same reason, to injure and oppress, on account of his color, one Jim Rainey, alias Jim Williams, because he had antecedently, on the third Wednesday of October, 1870, exercised his right to vote, then he is guilty on the second count.

But if the jury find, from the evidence, that no such conspiracy existed, or that if it existed, the intimidation or injury of voters because of their exercise of the suffrage, or to prevent its exercise, formed no part of its purpose, or that, if that were its purpose, the defendant was not engaged in it, then the defendant is not guilty. But the jury is not bound to believe the sole purpose of the conspiracy to be that set out in the first count; if they find it to be one of the purposes, it is sufficient. Nor if they find that the beatings and intimidation spoken of by the witnesses took place or existed, are the jury bound to believe that the reasons given at the time by the conspirators, if they find reasons were given, were the true reasons for such conduct, but the jury may determine, from all the evidence in the cause, what the true reasons were for such violence.

If the jury find, from the evidence, as we said before, that the conspiracy set forth in the first and second counts in the indictment existed, and the defendant engaged in it there, he is guilty on both counts. If there existed no such conspiracy at the time set out in the indictment, or if existing, it had another object which did not include that set out in the indictment, or if existing, and having the illegal purpose, the defendant took no part in it, then he is not guilty. The jury are at liberty to find one of three verdicts. They may find the party guilty generally, or not guilty generally, or they may find him guilty on one count, and not guilty on the other.

The jury found a verdict of guilty on the second count. A motion was made for a new trial, but it was overruled, and the prisoner was subsequently sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and a fine of one hundred dollars.