Filed Date: 1965
Closed Date: March 16, 1967
Clearinghouse coding complete
The United States charged the defendant in this case with lying to the FBI under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States). It brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, where the case was assigned to Judge John K. Regan. The defendant had told the FBI that he was beaten while handcuffed in the custody of the Missouri Highway Patrol. The FBI investigated but could not substantiate the defendant’s claim. After a trial, the defendant was convicted of violating Section 1001.
The defendant, represented by private counsel, appealed his conviction to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed the defendant’s conviction on March 16, 1967. 374 F.2d 363. It dealt only with the defendant’s first argument: that the indictment did not allege facts constituting a crime under Section 1001. The court explained that Section 1001 was merely intended to prevent the perversion of the functions of the government’s regulatory agencies by assuring that information such agencies were given was reliable. The fact that the defendant’s false statement triggered an FBI investigation was not, by itself, enough to violate Section 1001.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote a memorandum analyzing the status of Section 1001 at the time of the Friedman decision. This memo recommended that the DOJ not pursue certiorari–that is, review by the Supreme Court–in the Friedman case. The DOJ ultimately did not petition for certiorari from the Supreme Court.
Hank Minor (11/28/2022)
Doar, John (District of Columbia)
Marer, Alan G. (District of Columbia)
Norman, David L. (District of Columbia)
Norris, Grady J. (District of Columbia)
Last updated June 28, 2023, 3:02 a.m.Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.
State / Territory: Missouri
Filing Date: 1965
Closing Date: March 16, 1967
Case Ongoing: No
The plaintiff in this case was the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief: