United States v. James E. Williams
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- Military Courts1
- State Appellate Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.