United States v. Ahmad
347 F. Supp. 912 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute prohibiting the smuggling of 'anything whatsoever' into or out of a federal prison without the warden's knowledge and consent is a constitutional delegation of authority and does not violate the First Amendment. The crime of attempting to violate this statute is complete when a person, with the intent to bypass the warden's authority, takes a substantial step toward that goal, regardless of whether prison officials gain knowledge of the act through an informant.
Facts:
- Philip Berrigan, a Roman Catholic priest, was an inmate at the Lewisburg Federal Prison.
- Prison officials removed Sister Elizabeth McAlister, a nun, from Berrigan's list of approved correspondents, preventing them from communicating through official channels.
- Berrigan and McAlister began using Boyd F. Douglas, Jr., another inmate on a study-release program, as a secret courier to exchange letters.
- Berrigan would give sealed letters to Douglas inside the prison to be carried out and delivered to McAlister.
- McAlister would mail her letters to an unauthorized off-campus apartment maintained by Douglas, who would then smuggle them into the prison for Berrigan.
- Unbeknownst to the defendants, Douglas became a government informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
- As part of his role as an informant, Douglas would photocopy the letters before delivering them and turn the copies over to the government.
Procedural Posture:
- Philip Berrigan and Sister Elizabeth McAlister were indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1791.
- Defendants filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Philip Berrigan on four counts and Sister Elizabeth McAlister on three counts.
- Following the verdict, defendants submitted post-trial motions for arrest of judgment, renewing their constitutional challenge, and for judgment of acquittal on several grounds including entrapment and insufficient evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person commit the crime of attempting to smuggle letters into or out of a federal prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 when the letters are given to a courier who is secretly a government informant, thereby giving prison officials knowledge of the smuggling attempt?
Opinions:
Majority - Herman, District Judge
Yes, a person does commit the crime of attempting to smuggle letters in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the gravamen of the offense is the defendant's intent to deprive the warden of knowledge and consent, combined with action toward that goal. The crime of 'attempt' is complete at the moment the defendant takes a substantial step, such as giving the letter to the courier with the intent to bypass official prison channels. The fact that the courier was an informant and the warden subsequently gained knowledge of the scheme is irrelevant to the defendant's completed criminal attempt, as the defendant's mens rea was to act without the warden's knowledge. The court also rejected the defendants' constitutional challenges, holding that the statute is a valid delegation of congressional authority, is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and represents a justifiable incidental limitation on First Amendment freedoms given the substantial government interest in prison security. The court further dismissed defenses of entrapment, finding the defendants were predisposed and the criminal design originated with them, and discriminatory prosecution, as the defendants failed to show purposeful discrimination based on an unjustifiable standard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of attempt liability under the federal prison contraband statute, emphasizing that the crime is complete based on the defendant's intent and actions, not the ultimate success of the smuggling or the government's awareness of the plot. It strongly affirms the broad authority of prison officials to regulate all forms of communication to maintain security, holding that such regulations can withstand First Amendment challenges under the O'Brien test. The case also serves as a practical illustration of the high evidentiary burden defendants face when raising defenses such as entrapment and discriminatory prosecution, particularly in politically charged cases.
