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.
Sourcesedit
Stephen A. Saltzburg, et al. Criminal Law-Cases and Materials (2008, Third Ed.) Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. pp 752–53.
External linksedit
Text of United States v. Feola, 420U.S. 671 (1975) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
united, states, feola, this, article, includes, list, references, related, reading, external, links, sources, remain, unclear, because, lacks, inline, citations, please, help, improve, this, article, introducing, more, precise, citations, november, 2019, learn. This article includes a list of references related reading or external links but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations November 2019 Learn how and when to remove this message 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 United States v FeolaSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued November 19 1974Decided March 19 1975Full case nameUnited States v FeolaCitations420 U S 671 more 95 S Ct 1255 43 L Ed 2d 541 1975 U S LEXIS 4Case historyPriorUnited States v Alsondo 486 F 2d 1339 2d Cir 1973 cert granted 416 U S 935 1974 HoldingConspiracy to commit an assault on a federal agent carries no greater mens rea element than the substantive crimeCourt membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William O Douglas William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunLewis F Powell Jr William RehnquistCase opinionsMajorityBlackmun joined by Burger Brennan White Marshall Powell RehnquistDissentStewart joined by DouglasLaws applied18 U S C 111 18 U S C 371 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 Sources editStephen A Saltzburg et al Criminal Law Cases and Materials 2008 Third Ed Newark NJ LexisNexis pp 752 53 External links editText of United States v Feola 420 U S 671 1975 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Feola amp oldid 1175151381, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
