255 U.S. 138 (1921)
The United States secured an indictment against defendant L. C. Russell containing two counts alleging violations of section 135 of the Criminal Code of the United States.1 The Government elected not to pursue the second count.2 Count one specifically accused Russell of corruptly endeavoring to influence William D. Russell, a known petit juror in the discharge of his duty.3 Russell knew that William D. Russell had been summoned as a petit juror for a trial beginning on April 3, 1918.4 The trial involved William D. Haywood and other codefendants.5
On April 1, 1918, the defendant visited the home of William D. Russell located at No. 604 West Thirty-first Street in Chicago.6 There he engaged Lucy Russell, the juror's wife, in conversation.7 Russell stated that he represented the Haywood defendants and asked her to question her husband regarding his attitude toward the charges.8 He requested that she report the results of her inquiry to him.9 The statement indicated that the defendants wished to avoid paying money to jurors without assurance of favorable votes for acquittal.10
The defendant filed a demurrer to the indictment.11 He argued that the pleading lacked sufficient averments or recitals of jurisdictional facts.12 No facts appeared to show that a cause involving issues triable by jury was pending in the district court at the time mentioned in the indictment.13 The demurrer further specified that the indictment failed to allege William D. Russell's qualifications to serve as a juror or that he had been properly drawn, summoned, examined, and accepted.14 Additional deficiencies noted included uncertainty about the time and place of the conversation and whether Lucy Russell could or did communicate the message to her husband.15
The district court sustained the demurrer.16 It dismissed the indictment as a result.17 The United States obtained a writ of error from the Supreme Court to challenge the dismissal.18 This brought the case before the Court for review of the indictment's sufficiency.19
Whether the indictment sufficiently alleges that the defendant endeavored to influence a petit juror in violation of section 135 of the Criminal Code?20
The word of the section is “endeavor,” and by using it the section got rid of the technicalities which might be urged as besetting the word “attempt,” and it describes any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent.21 Criminality does not get rid of its evil quality by the precautions it takes against consequences, personal or pecuniary.22 The section, however, is not directed at success in corrupting a juror but at the “endeavor” to do so.23 Experimental approaches to the corruption of a juror are the “endeavor” of the section.24 Guilt is incurred by the trial — success may aggravate, it is not a condition of it.25
Yes. The indictment charges that defendant knew that William D. Russell was a petit juror in the discharge of his duty as such juror and, therefore, an endeavor to corruptly influence him was within the section, though he was not yet selected or sworn.26 On April 1, 1918, the defendant visited the home of William D.
Russell at No. 604 West Thirty-first Street in Chicago and engaged Lucy Russell in conversation, requesting her to question her husband regarding his attitude toward the Haywood defendants and to report the results, thereby conveying an offer to pay money for a favorable acquittal.27 These actions applied to the established facts constitute the endeavor prohibited by the statute.28
The district court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the indictment on this ground.29
Whether the indictment must contain additional averments of jurisdictional facts regarding the juror's qualifications, selection process, and communication of the proposal to the juror?30
The demurrer enumerated the deficiencies of the indictment.31 It did not appear that William D. Russell possessed the qualifications to act as a juror. He had not been duly and regularly drawn and summoned. He had not been examined and accepted as a juror at the array. It cannot be ascertained at what time and place the alleged conversation was had. It cannot be ascertained at what time Lucy Russell received the impression of the meaning of the conversation. It did not appear that she had access to her husband or had opportunity, or could have communicated the conversation to him. It did not appear that defendant knew she had such opportunity. It did not appear that William D. Russell was a juror in any particular case.
No. The demurrer argued that the indictment lacked sufficient averments of jurisdictional facts showing a pending jury-triable cause, the juror's qualifications, proper drawing and summoning, the exact time and place of the conversation, Lucy Russell's opportunity or actual communication to her husband, and that William D. Russell served in any particular case. The indictment alleged that the defendant knew William D. Russell was a petit juror in the discharge of his duty and had been summoned for the April 3, 1918 trial of William D.
Haywood and others, which satisfies the elements of the offense without the additional details demanded by the demurrer.32
The indictment is sufficient, the district court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment of dismissal must be reversed.33