Liparota (D) was a co-owner with his brother in a sandwich shop in Chicago. D was indicted for acquiring food stamps in violation of §2024 (b)(1). The Department of Agriculture did not authorize petitioner's restaurant to accept food stamps. Evidence at trial showed that D purchased food stamps from an undercover agent for substantially less than their face value on three different occasions in the back room of his restaurant. The court rejected a trial instruction relating to the specific intent because it deemed the case to be a knowledge case rather than a specific intent case. D was convicted. D appealed based on his contention that the crime required a showing of specific intent.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.