James Stanley Pipes v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1DissentGodbold, Circuit Judge
I concur in the result. The indictment charged that appellant knew the laundry supervisor was a federal officer or employee. There was sufficient evidence that appellant had such knowledge, and the last paragraph of the majority opinion so states. Nothing more needed to be said.
I must record my dissent from the remainder of the opinion. It has long been the settled law of this circuit, rendered in head-on decisions, that in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 it must be proved that the defendant had knowledge that the victim of his wrongful conduct was a federal officer. The unnecessary…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Ladner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Shapiro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. BalintSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.