Document: 344 U.S. 604 73 S.Ct. 481 97 L.Ed. 593 LUTWAK et al.v.UNITED STATES. No. 66. Argued Dec. 8 and 9, 1952. Decided Feb. 1953. Rehearing Denied March 16, See 345 919, 726. Mr. A. Bradley Eben, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners, Marcel Max Lutwak, Munio Knoll, Regina Treitler, together with Leopold Knoll Grace Klemtner, were indicted on six counts in Northern District Illinois, Eastern Division. first count charged conspiracy to commit substantive offenses set forth remaining five 'to defraud United States concerning its governmental function right administering' immigration laws Immigration Naturalization Service, by obtaining illegal entry into this country three aliens as spouses honorably discharged veterans. Klemtner was dismissed from indictment before trial because her constitutional rights had been violated grand jury. At conclusion all evidence, Court against defendants venue not shown Illinois. jury acquitted convicted petitioners count. Appeals affirmed, 7 Cir., 195 F.2d 748, we granted certiorari, 809, 13. 2 We are concerned here only conviction alleged conspiracy. Petitioner Treitler is sister petitioner Lutwak their nephew. married Poland 1932 one Maria Knoll. There some evidence that divorced 1942, but existence validity divorce determinable record. time inception conspiracy, it summer 1947, Munio, refugees Poland, living Paris, France, while lived desired get brothers States. 3 Alien veterans World War II permitted enter under provisions so-called Brides Act which provides pertinent part: 4 '* * notwithstanding any several clauses section February 5, 1917, excluding physically mentally defective aliens, documentary requirements or regulations, Executive orders, Presidential proclamations issued thereunder, alien children citizens serving in, having an honorable discharge certificate armed forces during Second shall, if otherwise admissible application admission made within years effective date Act, be admitted *.' 59 Stat. 659, U.S.C. § 232. 5 conspired have journey Paris go through marriage ceremonies Maria. would then accompany new secure representing themselves It further a part plan marriages form only, solely purpose enabling parties live husband wife, thereafter take whatever legal steps necessary sever ties. finally conceal these acts order prevent disclosure authorities. 6 consisted each make false statement authorities his he purported spouse, gone ceremony gaining understanding spouse man formal bonds ostensible when served fraudulent purpose. statute defining reads follows: 'If two more persons conspire either offense States, manner purpose, such do act effect object shall fined than $10,000, imprisoned years, both.' 18 (1946 ed.) 88, now (Supp. V) 371, U.S.C.A. 371. 9 sections violate provide 10 'Any who hereafter enters at place other designated officials eludes examination inspection officials, obtains willfully misleading representation willful concealment material fact, guilty misdemeanor and, upon conviction, punished imprisonment year fine $1,000, both imprisonment.' 45 1551, 180a, 180a. 11 'Whoever knowingly makes oath application, affidavit, document required regulations prescribed thereof, 43 153, 165, 220(c), 1546, 1546. 12 From favorable Government, could reasonably believed following transactions took place, bring them about. veteran, selected marry aunt marriage. He went where They traveled entering port New York September 1947. represented wife admitted. never few months commenced holding out such. meantime, himself friends unmarried man. 31, 1950. 13 Mrs. also found women—Bessie Benjamin Osborne Klemtner—who II, willing so come Bessie introduced accompanied Treitler. she pretended arrival City, November 13, Osborne. consummated intended be. separated after they time. Osborne's suit pending trial. 14 Still later, veteran acquaintance Leopold. December Klemtner. immediately country, until about appeared returned indictment. This approximately April 1, 1950, Paris. received substantial fee participating ceremonies. 15 abundance record contract spurious, phony purposes deceiving thereby perpetrating fraud 16 Petitioners present principal contentions: (1) Their unlawful involved valid marriages; (2) court erred permitting wives testify husbands; (3) admitting testimony various declarations different done said ended, without limiting particular defendant performed statement. I. 17 trial, undisputed Maria, Bess respectively. contended that, regardless intentions ceremonies, fact sufficient establish marriages, least Government proved invalidity French law. relied general American rule conflict celebrated everywhere unless incestuous, polygamous, declared void statute. Loughran v. Loughran, 292 216, 223, 54 684, 686, 78 1219; Restatement, Conflict Laws, §§ 121, 132—134. Neither side presented law, ruled absence law presumed same later instructed 'if subjects agree sake outside world will put end soon has deceive, really agreed all.' claim presuming relating contend even valid. believe material. No being prosecuted marital relation. consider In circumstances case, step scheme actions taken By directing 'alien spouses' citizen war reterans should Congress possible families join long delay qualifying proper quota. did intend easy means circumventing quota system fake neither ever relationship; evidenced care concealing husbands separate wife. common marriage, must mind provision undertaken life assume certain duties obligations. Such case here, might found. Thus, stated married, omitted explain true nature relationship, did, to, carry implications state facts true. 19 Because nor material, cases involving limited marriages,1 cited support contention instant valid, inapplicable. All those suits annulment requested grant relief basis own sham. Where denied, factors influenced court: A reluctance permit use procedure quick painless substitute divorce, particularly encourage people hastily inconsiderately; belief courts carrying secret schemes; desire injury innocent third parties, These no case. Similarly inapplicable entered render incompetent none relationship good faith.2 Much cosely related Rubenstein, 151 915, 918—919, held facilitating woman's intention party commonly understood, all. Rubenstein there faith—no consummate day. With consequences circumstances, concerned. II. 20 comes lips spurious marriages. next question confronted whether competent criminal prosecution thus incriminate husbands. 21 Civil above indicated. Must recognized creating may claimed testifying husbands? since Funk 290 212, 369, favor husband. 22 review revealed inconsistencies behalf husband, resolved competency. left rules competency witnesses formulated federal accordance reason experience. Wolfle 291 7, 12, 279, 617. followed promulgation Rule 26 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, U.S.C.A., 23 'Rule 26. Evidence. 24 admissibility privileges governed, except provide, principles interpreted light experience.' 25 paraphrase Stone's Wolfle, page 279. Under rule, governed governing necessarily existed acted, specifically authorized prescribe procedure, answer problem here. Therefore, open us say abrogate common-law disqualifying spouse. 27 When faith relation appear court, using defraud, other. Here again, principle interpreting instance, determine 'in experience' interpret protect sanctity tranquility relationship. hollow mockery arguing policy invoke 'the grown closer emotional, social, cultural unit' speak close emotional ties between wife' special protection society affords relationship.' sham, phony, empty giving disappears, rule. 28 'It often become axiomatic immutable flexible, adapts itself varying conditions.' supra, 383, 216. 29 experience compel disqualify therefore hold prohibiting antispousal application. testify. III. 30 Most defendants. erroneously properly testified to. must, therefore, decide ended. ended last Then there, say, complete, statutes complete. contends agreement among conspirators means, 31 But single overt committed any. fraud. doing what expedient disclosure. witness Haberman indicated Munio's cover up included conceal. afterthought conspirator covering up. understood it, Haberman, applicable only. 32 Krulewitch 336 440, 69 716, 93 790, rejected Government's every implicit thereof collaborate 33 'The far-reaching results. For plausible arguments generally most out-of-court statements offered tended shield co-conspirators. persuaded adopt theory create automatically breach hearsay evidence.' 444, 719. 34 While proved. think 35 does follow admissible. essential sole Acts relevant show spuriousness intent going competent—such continued apart came States; money paid consideration started terminate 36 Declarations stand footing. used declarant agent other, admissions standard exception party. Clune 159 590, 593, 125, 126, 40 269. Gooding, Wheat. 460, 468—470, 693. declaration can co-conspirator furtherance Fiswick 329 211, 217, 67 224, 227, 91 196; Logan 144 263, 308 309, 617, 631—632, 429. bind That teaching supra. Those dealt others prove True, dictum 632, frequently repeated, limit person performing them. overlooks objection hearsay. expression. acts, admissible, though occurred 917—918; see Fitzpatrick 178 304, 312—313, 944, 947, 44 1078; Ferris 837, 839. 37 Relevant co-conspirator, declarant's participation therein. careful instructions clear admits declarant, violates laid down Krulewitch. inadmissible declarant. 38 inevitable be, conspirators; silence conduct assent truth declaration. carefully clearly limitations Even then, instances together, places heavy burden jurors keep whom restricted specific difficulties pointed cases, e.g., 453, 723 (concurring opinion); Blumenthal 332 539, 559—560, 68 248, 257, 92 154; Nash 1006, 1006—1007, nonetheless applied. supra; Gottfried, 165 360, 367. 39 our search record, instance conspirators, made.3 Was item reverse case? not. view fairly shrieks guilt cannot conceive how possibly reach improper verdict. entitled fair perfect one. 52(a) Procedure.4 error harmless. 41 Finding reversible judgment affirmed. 42 Affirmed. JACKSON, BLACK FRANKFURTER join, dissenting. Whenever behavior obviously sordid great difficulty, effort bridge gap apt produce bad decision respects. 1. convinced crime proved, assumption formally contracted forbidden reason. judicial wish relieved Whether reservations annulled nice deceived expect nicer party, process, simply ignore consequences, 46 start invalid inception. brushes aside immaterial, goes very offense. If validly one, suppose On hand, utterly naught, happened, well extremes likely case—marriages perhaps voidable. (on trial) expressed stay acquitted; void. Certainly merely voidable adjudged represent subsisting. much single. Marriages convenience uncommon wedded, grounds proceedings contemplated. 47 contracting seem France. justifiable know same. ignores elementary history—the reception Roman Revolution, Napoleonic codifications. ineffectual beginning, require proof domestic relations. 48 2. waives privilege. *' Griffin 704, 714, 814, 819, 993, cited. condones departure because, says, genuine. need privilege independent established matrimonial nominal. respected privilege, wanted try collateral issue. However, conclude sham whose question. Court's position seems privileged destroy allowable, lift bootstraps. 49 3. crime, any, complete obtained 5. result 790. requires rejection includes implied secondary facts. revival long-discredited doctrine constructive postpone operation indefinitely subsequent But, accepts Krulewitch, ruling largely nullifies exemplifies dangers 50 purposes, maintain occurring accomplished co-conspirator. And times actor speaker alone. additional leverages proceeding instead omissions color 51 vivid illustration process action. brief punctuated eight footnotes recited text another defendant. doubt member Court, despite sifting testimony, whom, confident prolong analysis testimony. Some damaging. example, admitted, occasion apartment difficulty getting in. gained admittance, window, leaving Knoll's phenomenon could. adequately warned him. anybody forget picture caught taking hasty leave co-conspirator's making somewhat irregular exit? salutary terminated observed spirit letter. remote probative value, instruction predictably ineffectual, used. 52 reasons impelled dissent. E.g., Schibi Schibi, 136 Conn. 196, A.2d 831, A.L.R.2d 620; Hanson Hanson, 287 Mass. 154, 191 N.E. 673, A.L.R. 701. collected discussed note, 624 (1950). Norman State, 127 Tenn. 340, 155 S.W. 135, L.R.A., N.S., 399; State Frey, 76 Minn. 526, 79 N.W. 518. R. 208—209. testified: 'I asked action (Munio Knoll) me I wait citizen, long, wait.' attributed '(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity variance affect disregarded.'

Category: 0