Gebardi v United States
287 U.S. 112; 53 S. Ct. 35, 77 L.Ed. 206, 1932 U.S.
FACTS
-D's, a man and a woman, both engaged in illicit sexual relations in the course of their journey from one state to other states via Railway.
-The man purchased the tickets for each and the woman consented to go on each journey, and did go on it voluntarily for an immoral purpose.
ISSUE(S)
-Was it a violation of the Mann act when the woman consented to the activity involved?
-Can a male and female be convicted of conspiring to violate the Mann Act if the Act itself does not provide for any punishment for the woman for committing the completed substantive offense?
Holding: No
-Conspiracy between the two to violate the Act cannot exist because the Act does not punish a woman for acquiescing in the illicit transport for sex purposes, but only the man for transporting her.
-Absent involvement of the female, the man cannot be in a conspiracy by himself/alone with himself.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Jury trial conviction for conspiracy of Mann Act.
-Ct. of App affirmed conviction.
-Supreme Court reversed.
RULES
Mann Act: Any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for, or in transporting in interstate any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for any other immoral purpose violates the act.
ANALYSIS
-Here the woman could not have been prosecuted for violating the Mann Act as a result of her willful participation in these interstate journey’s taken for purposes of illicit sexual intercourse.
-As she could not have been charged with the offense, she could not therefore be guilty of conspiring to commit that offense because if she had in fact committed it, it would be no crime.
-The Mann Act only punishes the man for his involvement (not the woman for hers).
-If the woman cannot be charged with the conspiracy, then neither can the man. A conspiracy requires at least two persons.
287 U.S. 112; 53 S. Ct. 35, 77 L.Ed. 206, 1932 U.S.
FACTS
-D's, a man and a woman, both engaged in illicit sexual relations in the course of their journey from one state to other states via Railway.
-The man purchased the tickets for each and the woman consented to go on each journey, and did go on it voluntarily for an immoral purpose.
ISSUE(S)
-Was it a violation of the Mann act when the woman consented to the activity involved?
-Can a male and female be convicted of conspiring to violate the Mann Act if the Act itself does not provide for any punishment for the woman for committing the completed substantive offense?
Holding: No
-Conspiracy between the two to violate the Act cannot exist because the Act does not punish a woman for acquiescing in the illicit transport for sex purposes, but only the man for transporting her.
-Absent involvement of the female, the man cannot be in a conspiracy by himself/alone with himself.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Jury trial conviction for conspiracy of Mann Act.
-Ct. of App affirmed conviction.
-Supreme Court reversed.
RULES
Mann Act: Any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for, or in transporting in interstate any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for any other immoral purpose violates the act.
ANALYSIS
-Here the woman could not have been prosecuted for violating the Mann Act as a result of her willful participation in these interstate journey’s taken for purposes of illicit sexual intercourse.
-As she could not have been charged with the offense, she could not therefore be guilty of conspiring to commit that offense because if she had in fact committed it, it would be no crime.
-The Mann Act only punishes the man for his involvement (not the woman for hers).
-If the woman cannot be charged with the conspiracy, then neither can the man. A conspiracy requires at least two persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment