UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MARTY RUSSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an indictment for conspiracy need not allege an actual violation of the substantive statute or that the defendant committed an overt act.
Russo and co-defendants were indicted for conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles. They were convicted, and Russo's initial appeal was affirmed. Russo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Overt Act Requirement For Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Russo and nine co-defendants were indicted. The indictment charged them, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2312 by the transportation of stolen automobiles in interstate and foreign commerce. The indictment alleged the commission of overt acts, in furtherance of the conspiracy, by named defendants other than Russo. The defendants were convicted. On Russo’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we affirmed. Then Russo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, moved the district court to vacate the judgment, on the. ground that the indictment was defective. The district court entered an order denying this motion, without a hearing because “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petition is entitled to no relief.” Russo has appealed from this order. We think the motion wholly without merit: It was not necessary, on a conspiracy charge, to allege an actual violation of the substantive provisions of the statute. Nor was it essential to allege that Russo, as distinguished from other alleged conspirators, committed an overt act,1 or to describe the vehicles transported. Accordingly, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.
Affirmed.
. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; Bergen v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F. 2d 181, 187-188.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1915)
- Bergen v. United States, 145 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1944)