<document>
<doctype type="SYLLABUS">
<docheader>
<DISPOSITION>Syllabus</DISPOSITION>
<TERM>OCTOBER<unicode value="8194"> TERM,<unicode value="8194"> 1997</TERM>
<CASENAME>BROGAN <font i="1">v.<font> UNITED STATES</CASENAME>
<CITEAS>____ U.&nbsp;S. ____ (19__)</CITEAS>
<NOTICE>NOTE:<unicode value="8194"> Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.<linebreak>The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.<linebreak>See <font i="1">United States<font> v. <font i="1">Detroit Timber & Lumber Co<font>., 200 U.&nbsp;S. 321, 337.</NOTICE>
<NAMEPLATE>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES</NAMEPLATE>
</docheader>
<section>
<p style="SYLCTA">BROGAN <font i="1">v.<font> UNITED STATES<center></p>
<p style="SYLCTB">certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit<center></p>
<p style="SYLCTC">No. 96&ndash;1579.<unicode value="8195"> Argued December 2, 1997&mdash;Decided January 26, 1998<center></p>
<p style="SYLCTD">Petitioner falsely answered &ldquo;no&rdquo; when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer.  He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;C. &sect;1001.&nbsp; A jury in the District Court found him guilty.  The Second Circuit affirmed, catagorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called &ldquo;exculpatory no&rdquo; doctrine, which excludes from &sect;1001&rsquo;s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.<justify></p>
<p style="SYLCTE"><font i="1">Held:<unicode value="8194"> <font>There is no exception to &sect;1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an &ldquo;exculpatory no.&rdquo;  Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the &ldquo;exculpatory no&rdquo; doctrine, it is not supported by &sect;1001&rsquo;s plain language.  By its terms, &sect;1001 covers &ldquo;any&rdquo; false statement&mdash;that is, a false statement &ldquo;of whatever kind,&rdquo; <font i="1">United States <font>v. <font i="1">Gonzales<font>, 520 U.&nbsp;S. ___, ___&mdash;including the use of the word &ldquo;no&rdquo; in response to a question.  Petitioner&rsquo;s argument that &sect;1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that &ldquo;pervert governmental functions,&rdquo; and that simple denials of guilt do not do so.  <font i="1">United States<font> v. <font i="1">Gilliland<font>, 312 U.&nbsp;S. 86, 93, distinguished.  His argument that a literal reading of &sect;1001 violates the &ldquo;spirit&rdquo; of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie.  <font i="1">E.g., United States<font> v. <font i="1">Apfelbaum,<font> 445 U.&nbsp;S. 115, 117.  His final argument that the &ldquo;exculpatory no&rdquo; doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that &sect;1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to &ldquo;pile on&rdquo; offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress.  Pp. 2&ndash;8. <justify></p>
<p style="SYLCTG">96 F.&nbsp;3d 35, affirmed.<justify></p>
<p style="SYLCTH"><tab><font scaps="1">Scalia, J.,<font> delivered the opinion of the Court, in which <font scaps="1">Rehnquist, C.&nbsp;J.,<font> and <font scaps="1">O&rsquo;Connor, Kennedy,<font> and <font scaps="1">Thomas, JJ.,<font> joined, and in which <font scaps="1">Souter, J.,<font> joined in part.  <font scaps="1">Souter, J.,<font> filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.  <font scaps="1">Ginsburg, J.,<font> filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which <font scaps="1">Souter, J.,<font> joined.  <font scaps="1">Stevens, J.,<font> filed a dissenting opinion, in which <font scaps="1">Breyer, J.,<font> joined.<justify></p>
</section>
</document>