The Law School Authority

U.S. v. Wilson Case Brief

Summary of U.S. v. Wilson, U.S. Ct. App, 1980

Facts: Def Wilson, was employed in the HEW until his office was reorganized under Service and Delivery Assessment.  During the period of reassignment there was little work within the office.  Wilson, insisting that government work come first, asked his secretaries to perform some typing functions on a personal business dealing securing property and rights thereunder.  After nearly a year and a half, a newspaper reported discovered Wilson’s endeavor and reported it to the authorities and the public.

Issue: Whether the Def had the necessary intent to convert his secretary’s services for his own personal gain?

Holding: No

Procedure: District Court dismissed counts 1 and 4;, jury acquitted on counts 2,3,6, found guilty of count 5; to wit: Conversion of Government Property.

Rule: Proof for conviction requires criminal intent to steal or knowingly convert, that is , wrongfully deprive another of possession of property.

Ct Rationale: During Sept. 1977 and March 1978 he had no official duties to perform with SDA.  In January 1978 he was told at the SDA meeting he could work on reports for the regional office.  Wilson did not receive his appointment until April 1978.  There is no testimony that Wilson declined to work during the period in question.  There is no evidence that Wilson ordered his secretaries to conceal their efforts, but rather he instructed them to perform government work first.  He may have abused his position but he lacked the intent to steal or convert government property.  Any Government work that was pending was performed by Wilson or his secretaries, and it was only when no work was available b/c of the reorganization that the personal work was performed.

PL A: Wilson’s intent is evidenced by his failure to report his inactivity and by testimony that he avoided opportunities to take on other work.

Def A: The work done by the secretaries was voluntary and secondary to any governmental work awaiting completion.  There was no concealment of the work being performed.




Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner