United States v. Robert Worrall
United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
28 F. Cas. 774 (1798)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Robert Worrall (defendant) was essentially a primitive contractor who placed a bid to construct a lighthouse in North Carolina for a profit of $1,400. Worrall wrote the Commissioner of Revenue, Tench Coxe, and offered Coxe half of the profits should Worrall’s bid be accepted. Coxe consulted the state attorney general, arranged a meeting, and got Worrall to repeat his offered bribe. At that point, the federal government (plaintiff) indicted Worrall for offering the bribe to Coxe in a letter and then repeating the bribe offer orally. Although the facts were uncontested, the storm brewing in this case was the matter of the legal basis by which the court had jurisdiction against Worrall. That neither the Constitution nor the acts of Congress had proscribed bribery against a federal official was undisputed. Two differing bases for claiming jurisdiction over the case existed—first, because Federal law governed Coxe’s position and his obligation to perform under that position, and Coxe would have been punished under federal law had Coxe accepted the bribe, then the crime of bribery must flow from the federal law. Secondly, in the absence of federal authority, the common law recognized the crime of bribery and would allow for Worrall’s conviction, independent of any federal statutory or constitutional mandate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chase, J.)
Dissent (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
