◆ SpookStack

IN 44-1 "decective, except under the direction of the Chief of Police for a specified time. There was substantial eviderce that Williams impersonated an officer and acted under color of law. He was found guilty of the charge by a jury and his conviction was affirmed. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States where it was affirmed. The Supreme Court on appeal in Williams ve “nited States, 341 US 97; 71 S.Ct. 576, observed that the indictment charged that petitioner acting under color of law used ferce to make each victim confess to his guilt ard implicate others and that the victims were denied the right t- be trfed by due process of law and if found guilty to be sentenced and punished in accordance with the lays of that state. The Court quoted from Count 2 cf the indictment which charged violation of the Four- teenth Amendment rights as follows: 'The right and privilege not tc be deprived of liberty without due process cf law, the right and privilege to be secure in his person while in the custody of the State of Flcrida, the right and privilege not to be subjected to funishment without due process of law, the right and tivilege to be immune while in the custody of persons acting under color of the laws of the State of Florida, from illegal assault and battery by any person exer- cising the authority of said state, and the right and privilege to be tried by due process of law and if found guilty to be sentenced and punished in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.’ The trial judge ad- menished the jury that the defendants were ‘not here on trial for a viclation of any law of the State of Florida for assault’ nor ‘for assault under any laws of the United States.’ The Supreme Court thus affirmed said conviction and approved such application and use of $242 to these facts and circurstances. It is thus made crystal clear that the defendants in this case who were officers and were allegedly acting willfully under color of law as charged in the indictment are vulnerable to the offense charged in $242. To same effect is United States v. Jones, (5CA) 207 F.2d 785. Likewise in Kcehler v. United States, (5CA) 189 F.2d 711, the Court affirmed a convic- ticr of a constable and his co-worker who violated $242 by the viclating of federal rights of a victim under color of law. Im that case Ackerman was not a mere private - 26 - ae AB L qe