Document: 442 U.S. 100 99 S.Ct. 2190 60 L.Ed.2d 743 Robert DUNN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 77-6949. Argued March 29, 1978. Decided June 4, 1979. Syllabus Petitioner's testimony before a grand jury in 1976 implicated one Musgrave various drug-related offenses, and an indictment of followed. On September 30, 1976, petitioner recanted his oral statement made under oath the office Musgrave's attorney. then moved to dismiss indictment, alleging that it was based on perjured testimony. At evidentiary hearing this motion October 21, adopted 30 testified only small part true. As result, charges against were reduced. Petitioner subsequently indicted for violations 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (1976 ed., Supp. I), which prohibits false declarations "in any proceeding or ancillary court jury." The charged petitioner's inconsistent with statements "on while as witness to" prosecution. trial, Government introduced, over objection, pertinent parts testimony, at hearing, sworn convicted, Court Appeals affirmed. Although agreed interview attorney's not 1623, concluded 21 such proceeding. While acknowledging specified rather than proceeding, construed discrepancy nonprejudicial variance between proof trial. Held: 1. Since instructions erred predicating its affirmance To uphold conviction charge neither alleged nor presented offends most basic notions due process. might well have reached same verdict had prosecution built case adopting latter itself, offense so defined, appellate courts are free revise basis defendant is convicted simply because result would likely obtain retrial. Pp. 105-107. 2. both language legislative history Title IV 1970 Organized Crime Control Act make clear, private given does constitute "proceeding jury" within meaning 1623. Moreover, characterize contravene long-established practice resolving doubt concerning ambit criminal statutes favor lenity. 107-113. 10th Cir., 577 F.2d 119, reversed. Daniel J. Sears, Denver, Colo., petitioner. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 1970, United States."1 This turns scope term phrase defined provision elsewhere Criminal Code. More specifically, we must determine whether constitutes statute. 2 * 16, Dunn federal grant immunity pursuant 6002.2 investigating illicit drug activity Colorado State Penitentiary where been incarcerated. Dunn's fellow inmate, Phillip Musgrave, offenses. Following appearance, conspiracy manufacture distribute methamphetamine. 3 Several months later, arrived without counsel attorney, Michael Canges. In presence Canges notary public, he implicating Musgrave. support motion, attorney submitted transcript statement. 4 District held 1976. petitioner, who represented by counsel, Canges' what told fact App. 46. reduced misdemeanor possession See 844. 5 five counts making violation I). States v. . degree said ." 5-6.3 response bill particulars, indicated rely "inconsistent declarations" method authorized 1623(c). Under subsection, establish materiality inconsistency proceedings jury, but need prove false. n. 1, supra. 6 introduced objection After rested case, renewed objections acquittal. He contended required addition, argued use declaration Government's promise immunity, 6002 Fifth Amendment. denied jury. three sentenced concurrent 5-year terms each count. 7 Tenth Circuit 119 (1978). determined investigation. F.2d, 123. Acknowledging Id., 123-124. also upheld immunized violation. ruling, stated generally may be used prior independent showing But, court's view, unequivocal concession falsely justified reliance 125-126. 8 We granted certiorari, 439 1045, 719, 58 703 Because disagree Appeals' ultimate disposition ancillary-proceeding issue, reverse reaching question admissible II 9 A arises when evidence adduced trial establishes facts different from those indictment. Berger States, 295 78, 55 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). instant since identified pleadings However, reasoning "inextricably related" declaration, could anticipated introduce therefore fatal case. Kotteakos 328 750, 757, 66 1239, 1243, 90 1557 (1946). 10 our unnecessary inquire, did Appeals, prejudiced proved For discern no variance. That theory tried jury.4 Indeed, rebuttal dispel inference Tr. 82-83. But there rendered sustained conviction. Whereas instructed rest decision statement, predicated concedes ruling erroneous. Brief 15, 35; Oral Arg. 25. agree. 11 Few constitutional principles more firmly established defendant's right heard specific accused. Eaton Tulsa, 415 697, 698-699, 94 1228, 1229-1230, 39 693 (1974) (per curiam ); Garner Louisiana, 368 157, 163-164, 82 248, 251-252, 207 (1961); Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 201, 68 514, 517, 92 644 (1948); De Jonge iOregon, 299 353, 362, 57 255, 259, 81 278 (1937). There is, sure, glaring distinction Circuit's analysis appeal. itself. recognized supra, U.S., S.Ct., "[i]t much process send accused prison following never convict him upon made." Thus, unless constituted cannot stand. III 12 Congress enacted Act, Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, facilitate perjury prosecutions thereby enhance reliability juries. S.Rep.No. 91-617, pp. 58-59 (1969). Invoking broad congressional purpose, argues expansive construction analysis, swearing affidavit poses threat fact-finding open court. 21. contends submission court, local bar grill, fall 31. judgment, "proceeding," carries somewhat formal connotation, suggests narrower end view enacting And confirms conclusion. 13 Section perceived problems demonstrating existing statute, 1621.5 noted, strict common-law requirements establishing falsity engrafted onto statute often exceptionally difficult.6 By relieving burden proving two false, see 1623(c), sought afford "greater assurance obtained will aid cause truth." p. 59 nothing contemplated relaxation respect all oath. Had intended presumably drafted encompass irrespective they Particularly aware embraced regard given,7 choice less comprehensive appear inadvertent. 14 sweep broadly apparent origin initially Congress, contained version encompassed "trial, jury."8 When asked comment proposed Department noted "not inclusive" Hearings S. et al. Subcommittee Laws Procedures Senate Committee Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 372 (1969) (hereinafter Hearings). Significantly, suggest coextensive subsequent hearings, Assistant Attorney General Wilson indicated, elaboration, advocated "including [under 1623] other preliminary statements, field." 389. 15 general suggestion, Senator McClellan, behalf Subcommittee, sent letter clarifying purpose: 16 "You read cover 'pre-trial depositions, affidavits certifications.' intent drafting bill. hoped applicable, example, situations [the] kind pre-trial depositions enforcement 1861 present. If included 'proceedings jury,' do you feel adequately expressed?" 409.9 17 attaches great significance qualification, "for example," McClellan's letter. pretrial mentioned illustrative, interprets subsume certifications well. originally drew Senator's Responding modification advert "[i]nclusion jury' bring coverage 1861." 411. 19 Department's contemporaneous current interpretation offers plausible reading Subcommittee's intent. Its attention having drawn wished statutory prohibition, McClellan stated. 20 Finally, construe excluding contexts comport Congress' related Act. 6002, authorizes extension claims privilege self-incrimination agency committees. 2, House Report defines precise specify sole example provision. H.R.Rep.No. 91-1549, 42 (1970); 145 (1969); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4007. conclusion "lack[ed] formality" 123.10 seriously maintain deposition. attempt comply procedural safeguards set forth Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 3503. order authorizing deposition obtained.11 Nor receive notice present.12 even certify accurate.13 22 take liberties Court's questions Huddleston 814, 831, 1262, 1271, 782 (1974); Rewis 401 808, 812, 91 1056, 1059, 28 493 (1971); Bell 349 81, 83, 75 620, 622, 905 (1955). reflects merely convenient maxim construction. Rather, rooted fundamental mandate individual forced speculate, peril conduct prohibited. Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 108, 2294, 2298, 33 222 (1972); Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 811, 98 989 (1954); Lanzetta New Jersey, 306 451, 453, 618, 619, 83 888 (1939); McBoyle 283 25, 27, 51 340, 341, 816 (1931). ensure legislature speaks special clarity marking boundaries conduct, decline impose punishment actions " 'plainly unmistakably' proscribed. Gradwell, 243 476, 485, 37 407, 410, 61 857 (1917). 23 conclude here clearly expressed should Accordingly, hold statute.14 judgment 24 Reversed. 25 POWELL took consideration part, I) provides: "(a) Whoever (or certificate, verification, penalty permitted section 1746 title 28, Code) knowingly makes material uses information, including book, paper, document, record, recording, material, knowing contain shall fined $10,000 imprisoned years, both. "(c) An information that, has declarations, them necessarily if— "(1) point question, "(2) period limitations section. "In section, sufficient irreconcilably contradictory It defense first sentence subsection time believed true." 6002: "Whenever refuses, self-incrimination, testify provide to— "(3) either joint committee Houses, subcommittee House, person presiding communicates issued refuse self-incrimination; compelled directly indirectly derived information) except perjury, giving otherwise failing order." Each count representation corresponding portion 3-11. beyond reasonable "while oath, 179. define admonished render given. 175-176; focused their summations 151, 167. 1621 "Whoever— taken competent tribunal, officer, person, law administered, testify, declare, depose, truly, written deposition, certificate subscribed, true, willfully contrary states subscribes matter believe true; Code, true "is guilty shall, expressly provided law, $2,000 applicable subscription States." particular, two-witness rule, "the uncorroborated enough accused." Hammer 271 626, 46 603, 604, 70 1118 (1926); accord, Weiler 323 606, 608-610, 65 548, 549-550, 89 495 (1945). 57-59 id., 110-111; 5, entirety, original 1623(a) provided: "Whoever, falsifies fact, fictitious, fraudulent representation, writing document entry, imprisonment both." adverted involved racketeering investigations. currently codified 1968. arguing relies Stassi, 583 122 (CA3 1978), Krogh, 366 F.Supp. 1255, 1256 (DC 1973). Stassi plea irreconcilable supporting vacate sentence. Without adverting history, affirmed "offends administration justice [other] declaration[s]." 127. Insofar Stassi's here, follow it. Krogh affords position 3503(a) "whenever exceptional circumstances interest prospective party preserved, after filing parties 15(a) substantially same. §§ 3503(b), (c); 15(b). 46; 3503(d); 15(d). points out if reverses ground subject reindictment urges us reach second decided 36-37. advisory suppositions reindicted introduced.

Category: 0