| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

United States v. Averill was a Supreme Court case decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the United States and William Averill, a former employee of the United States Treasury Department. Averill had been accused of embezzling funds from the Treasury Department and was indicted for the crime. Averill argued that the indictment was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required by law. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the indictment was valid, even though it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Court reasoned that the Secretary of the Treasury was not required to sign the indictment in order for it to be valid, and that the indictment was sufficient to charge Averill with the crime. The Court also held that the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction, and that Averill was not entitled to a dismissal of the indictment. The Court's decision in United States v. Averill established that an indictment does not need to be signed by the Secretary of the Treasury in order to be valid.
In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Averill, Justice Douglas argued that the majority’s decision to uphold a conviction for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government was wrongfully based on an overly broad interpretation of the statute in question. He argued that Congress had not intended such a wide-reaching application and noted that there were other ways in which Congress could have chosen to punish those who failed to comply with registration requirements without criminalizing conduct beyond what it had explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, he asserted that if this expansive reading were allowed, then any person who engaged in activities related to foreign governments would be subject to prosecution even when their actions did not constitute espionage or sabotage. Ultimately, Justice Douglas concluded by emphasizing his belief that allowing such convictions would lead down “a dangerous road” and should therefore be avoided at all costs.