Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights

15 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Laskey

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    Laskey also solicited co-conspirator Jesse Baker to kill potential witnesses and to call in a bomb threat to the federal courthouse in Eugene, where a grand jury was convened to investigate the crime. Then, between the latter part of 2004 and the early part of 2005, Laskey intimidated or attempted to intimidate Jesse Baker, to prevent Baker from relating information regarding the solicitation to federal investigators.Jacob Laskey pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. 247 (damage to religious property); 18 U.S.C. 1512 (obstruction of justice); 18 U.S.C. 373 (solicitation to commit a crime of violence); and 18 U.S.C. 922 (felon in possession of a firearm) and, on April 3, 2007, he was sentenced to 11 years and three months in federal prison.Co-conspirators Gerald Anthony Poundstone and Gabriel Laskey entered guilty pleas to violating 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy to violate civil rights) and 18 U.S.C. 247 (damage to religious property). Poundstone was sentenced to 15 months in prison.

  2. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Marlowe

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    After Kuntz slipped into a coma, Marlowe failed to call for medical care for several hours even though he was aware that Kuntz lay unconscious and vomiting on the floor of his cell. Kuntz eventually died from internal bleeding in his brain that was caused by these beatings and the delay in receiving medical care.On July 23, 2004, a federal grand jury returned an indictment, charging Marlowe, Hale, Conatser, Ferrell, and Locke with violating 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy against rights). Additionally, Marlowe was charged with violating seven counts of 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law); Hale was charged with three counts of violating 242; Conatser and Ferrell were charged with two counts of violating 242; Locke was charged with one count of violating 242.

  3. Proposed Justice in Policing Act of 2020, some proposals on arrest and frisk, qualified immunity, use of force, and no-knock warrants

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJune 9, 2020

    (c) LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or local jurisdiction may not receive funds under the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or other jurisdiction does not have in effect a law that prohibits the issuance of a no-knock warrant in a drug case. In § 363, incentivizes banning of chokeholds and carotid holds (pdf at 66:23 ff) and makes a chokehold a federal criminal civil rights violation (18 U.S.C. § 241) in § 363(e)(2). (pdf 67:14-68:2) In § 372, it requires federal officers who make arrests or searches wear body camera and activate them.

  4. A Bridge Too Far? Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in "Bridgegate" Case

    Baker DonelsonMatthew ChesterJuly 10, 2019

    In short, the government's theory was that Baroni and Kelly deprived the government of property or money (for example, the employment of an extra toll booth worker required as a result of the scheme, the payment of monies to Port Authority employees to collect and analyze the data for the "traffic study," and the traffic lanes themselves) through the use of false pretenses, namely, the sham "traffic study." After a six-week trial, Baroni and Kelly were convicted on all nine counts against them – a combination of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), governmental fraud (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)), conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and civil rights violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).Third Circuit DecisionOn November 27, 2018, the Third Circuit largely affirmed the jury's verdict, upholding seven of the nine counts of conviction.

  5. D.P.R.: Criminal 4A violation proved by LEO being lookout on duty for robbery of recent ATF arrestee’s home

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJune 26, 2016

    He worked the 4 pm to midnight shift, and he was involved as a police lookout to enable a condominium robbery to occur. He was convicted of conspiring to violate civil rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241, namely the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. He admitted the first element and challenged that the Fourth Amendment was involved or that his action as a lookout was state action.

  6. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Nicholson

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    Rodela lit the fuse, as planned, and placed the explosive under a van parked in front of the victims’ home; however, the plan was interrupted when the group then saw a police car patrolling the area and quickly fled the scene.In 2002, all six defendants pled guilty to civil rights offenses related to these attacks. Nicholson pled guilty to violating two counts of 18 U.S.C. 241 (civil rights conspiracy); one count of 42 U.S.C. 3631 (interference with housing rights); and one count of 18 U.S.C. 844(h) (use of fire in the commission of a felony). Franz pled guilty to two counts of 241 and one count of 18 U.S.C. 924(c); LaBarge pled guilty to two counts of 241; and Tegelman, Rodela, and Vanlannen each pled guilty to one count of 241.

  7. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Kuzlik and Fredericy

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    The EPA eventually determined that most of the carpet in the house, as well as the family’s Sunday dress clothes, which were stored in an entry-hall closet, were contaminated with mercury and would have to be destroyed. In addition, environmental authorities tested the backpacks and shoes of two of the children who resided in the house and determined that the children had transported the mercury to their school.Kuzlik and Fredericy were charged federally with violating 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy), 42 U.S.C. 3631 (interference with housing rights) and 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements to the federal investigators of the EPA). On October 26, 2006, Fredericy pled guilty to those charges and, on November 27, 2006, Kuzlik followed suit.

  8. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Price, et al

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    After a grand jury heard evidence in the fall of 1964, it returned two indictments on January 15, 1965. The first indictment charged three law enforcement officials, including Price, and fifteen private citizens who were members of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, with conspiring to deprive the three men of their 14thAmendment rights (18 U.S.C. 241). The second indictment had four counts charging the same 18 defendants with a general conspiracy of acting under color of law to deprive Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman of their civil rights.A month later the District Court dismissed the § 241 indictment entirely and the 242 counts against the fifteen private individuals, while maintaining the conspiracy count against the private individuals.

  9. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Bartlett et al

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    Bartlett also stabbed a sharp object into both of Jude’s ears, cut his clothes from his body with a knife, and threatened him with a knife and a gun.Officers Ryan Lemke, Jon Clausing, Joseph Stromei, and Joseph Schabel (who was on duty) pleaded guilty prior to trial and were sentenced to 1 year, 28 months, 2 years, and 32 months in prison, respectively. On July 26, 2007, Bartlett, Spengler, and Masarik were convicted by a federal jury of violating 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 (deprivations of rights under color of law). In November 2007, Bartlett was sentenced to 208 months in prison; Spengler and Masarik received 188 months each.

  10. DOJ Case Summary: U.S. v. Lee

    U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 1, 2016

    On August 30, 2001, a federal grand jury returned a 22-count indictment. Lee was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of workers (18 U.S.C. 241), seventeen counts of involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. 1584), one count of extortion (18 U.S.C. 1951), one count of money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1956), one count of making a false statement to a financial institution (18 U.S.C. 1014), and one count of bribery (18 U.S.C. 215).The federal trial started on October 22, 2002, and lasted four months.