Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.
Notes of Decisions
Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009).
“There, federal agents flouted the requirement by interrogating several murder suspects for days before bringing them before a magistrate, and then only after they had given the confessions that convicted them.”
Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410 (1948).
· cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 595 is not in effect but has been superseded by Rule 5 (a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts of the United States: "5 (a) APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.”
Cherniwchan v. State, 594 P.2d 464 (Wyo. 1979).
· cites it 2× “But the mere fact that the accused was illegally detained in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 595 , does not of itself void a conviction based upon competent evidence.”
United States v. Donald A. Broadhead, 413 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1969).
· cites it 3× “While the decision was limited to the problem before it, an improperly obtained confession, the Court used broad language to condemn the conduct of the officers who violated the statute in obtaining the evidence. The language involved was clearly broad enough to justify finding…”
Blood v. Hunter, 150 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1945).
· cites it 3× “He does not allege that the confession was obtained by threats or coercion, but rests his case solely upon the contention that the failure of the arresting officers to immediately take him before a committing officer for arraignment, as provided by 18 U.S.C.A. § 595 , 1 and the…”
Caldwell v. Bateman, 312 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 2× “§ 89-972); 18 USC § 595 . [3] The Commissioner points out that the Lieutenant Governor serves as President of the Senate, hence is a member of the legislative branch.”
Bey v. State, 781 A.2d 952 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001).
“The Court stated that requiring the police to “immediately” bring an arrested person before a judicial officer constitutes an important safeguard — not only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in securing conviction of the guilty by methods that commend themselves…”
Gros v. United States, 136 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1943).
· cites it 2× “He had not been before and was not taken before a committing magistrate during that period, as required of the arresting officers by 18 U.S.C.A. § 595 . The confession was signed on January 26th, after questioning by several investigators for many hours daily over the five days.”
Morton v. United States, 147 F.2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1945).
“…U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 . 21 United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65 , 64 S.Ot. 896. 22 18 U.S.C.A. § 595 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.