Lamar v. United States
Headline: Dismisses challenge and leaves in place a conviction for impersonating a member of Congress, holding federal courts may decide impersonation fraud and that objections about trial location and federal authority fail.
Holding: Writ of error dismissed; conviction upheld because challenges to federal court authority, the indictment’s sufficiency, and trial location are without merit.
- Leaves the impersonation conviction in place against the defendant.
- Confirms federal courts can decide impersonation-of-officer fraud cases.
- Supports trying a case where the impersonation took effect by telephone.
Summary
Background
A man was tried and convicted for pretending to be a member of Congress, specifically A. Mitchell Palmer, by telephone and with the intent to defraud two big companies, J.P. Morgan & Company and the United States Steel Corporation. He asked the high court to overturn the conviction, arguing the indictment did not charge a crime against the United States and that the case raised a constitutional question about whether a Congressman counts as a federal "officer." He also claimed the written charge was insufficient and that it did not show where the crime happened.
Reasoning
The Court, speaking through Justice Holmes, said the objections went to the merits of the case, not to whether the court had power to hear it. The key question was what the word "officer" meant in the criminal law, not what it means in the Constitution. Holmes explained that the same word can mean different things in different laws. He also rejected claims that the indictment needed more detail about the intended fraud, and noted the telephone call reached someone in New York’s Southern District, so the trial location was reasonably supported by the evidence. The Court called the objections frivolous and unsupported.
Real world impact
The result leaves the conviction in place and confirms that federal courts can try cases of impersonating a government official when the facts show the impersonation took effect in the district. The decision does not make a broad constitutional rule about members of Congress; instead, it treats the issue as a matter of statutory meaning and ordinary criminal procedure.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?