# Grosso v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinions

    Brennan
    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinion

    Warren
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 62
Grosso v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
No. 12. Argued: January 18 and October 10-11, 1967 --- Decided: January 29, 1968
Petitioner was convicted for failure to pay the excise tax on wagering and the occupational tax imposed, respectively, by 26 U.S.C. § 4401 and 4411 and for conspiracy to defraud the Government by evading payment of both taxes. In addition to the general statutory and regulatory requirements described in Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 39, those liable for payment of the excise tax must submit monthly to the tax authorities on a special form, to accompany payment, detailed information concerning their wagering activities which the tax authorities make available to prosecuting officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner's contention that the charges relating to the excise tax violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Petitioner has not made a similar contention concerning his conviction on charges involving the special occupational tax.
Held:
    1. The wagering excise tax provisions, which, like the provisions involved in Marchetti v. United States, supra, were directed almost exclusively to individuals inherently suspect of criminal activities, violated petitioner's privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Fifth Amendment. Ibid. Pp. 64-69.
    2. The "required records" doctrine of Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, cannot appropriately be applied here. Marchetti v. United States, supra. Pp. 67-69.
    3. Restrictions upon the use by prosecuting authorities of information obtained as a consequence of payment of the wagering excise tax would be inappropriate where this Court has held it improper to impose similar restrictions with respect to "an integral part" of the same system. Ibid. P. 69.
    4. Since petitioner did not waive the privilege against self-incrimination with regard to the charges involving the occupational tax and reversal by the lower courts of his conviction thereon would be inevitable in the light of this case and Marchetti, the judgment is conviction in its entirely is reversed by this Court. Pp. 71-72.
358 F. 2d 154, reversed.
Charles Alan Wright reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs on the reargument and on the original argument was James E. McLaughlin.
Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., reargued the cause for the United States, pro hac vice. With him on the brief on the reargument were Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit. Jack S. Levin argued the cause for the United States on the original argument. On the brief were Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Miss Rosenberg and Theodore George Gilinsky.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse