## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Isaac States and codefendants on one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371) and 136 substantive counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342).
- The indictment alleged an election-fraud scheme targeting voters and residents of specified St. Louis wards and the local Board of Election Commissioners.
- The scheme’s object was to deprive those victims of the right to a fair, impartial, and lawfully administered election, including honest vote counting and proper election administration.
- The charged conduct included procuring unlawful or fraudulent registrations and absentee ballots, manipulating voting lists, and related acts corrupting the election process.
- Each substantive mail-fraud count was tied to a particular use of the mails in furtherance of the alleged scheme.
- The indictment did not allege that any victim lost money or tangible property.
- Defendants moved pretrial to dismiss for failure to state an offense, arguing § 1341 requires a scheme to obtain money or property; the district court denied the motion.
- Defendants waived a jury, were convicted in a bench trial, and appealed, principally challenging the indictment’s sufficiency and the scope of § 1341.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires an allegation that the defendant sought to obtain money or property in every mail-fraud prosecution.
2. Whether an election-fraud scheme depriving citizens and election officials of the right to a fair and lawful election process qualifies as a “scheme or artifice to defraud” under § 1341.
3. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of mail fraud and conspiracy by describing the scheme, the intended victims, and the mailings.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that § 1341 covers a scheme to defraud citizens and election authorities of the right to a fair and impartial election process, even without any allegation of money or property loss.
- The court interpreted the “scheme or artifice to defraud” clause and the “obtaining money or property” clause as disjunctive, with the latter providing an additional basis for liability rather than narrowing the former.
- The court concluded the indictment adequately set out the fraudulent scheme, identified the victims, and alleged specific mail uses to execute the scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1341, a “scheme or artifice to defraud” may include deprivation of certain nonmonetary public rights, including the right to a fair and lawfully conducted election, when the mails are used to execute the scheme.
- The statutory phrase “or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses” states an alternative category of prohibited schemes and does not limit the broader “scheme or artifice to defraud” language.
- An indictment is sufficient if it alleges the fraudulent scheme with adequate specificity, identifies the intended victims, and pleads use of the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme.

## Conclusion

The court upheld mail-fraud and conspiracy convictions based on an election-fraud scheme aimed at depriving voters and election officials of a fair election, ruling that § 1341 does not require allegations of money or property loss when the indictment otherwise pleads a scheme to defraud and mailings in furtherance of that scheme.


United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761 (8th Cir. 1973)