Document: 394 U.S. 459 89 S.Ct. 1166 22 L.Ed.2d 418 William J. McCARTHY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 43. Argued Dec. 9, 1968. Decided April 2, 1969. Maurice McCarthy, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. James Van R. Springer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves procedure that must be followed under Rule 11 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure before a United States District Court may accept guilty plea and remedy failure to follow procedure. 2 On 1, 1966, petitioner was indicted on three counts in Northern Illinois violating § 7201 Internal Revenue Code. He charged with 'wilfully knowingly' attempting evade tax payments $928.74 1959 (count 1), $5,143.70 1960 2), $1,207.12 1961 3). At his arraignment two weeks later, petitioner, who represented by retained counsel, pleaded not each count. The court scheduled trial June 30; but 29, it granted Government's motion postpone because petitioner's illness. rescheduled July 15. 3 day, after informing he had 'advised * (petitioner) consequences plea,' defense counsel moved withdraw count enter Judge asked if desired plead understood such waived right jury subjected him imprisonment as long five years fine high $10,000. Petitioner stated these wanted guilty. Government consented this change informed were accepted, would move dismiss 3. Before however, prosecutor judge inquire whether been induced any threats or promises. In response judge's inquiry, replied product either. entered 'own volition.' ordered presentence investigation continued September 14, 1966.1 4 commencement sentencing hearing asserted pay taxes 'not deliberate' they have paid poor health. 'prime consideration' agreement promise all taxes, penalties, interest. then requested refer expressly agreement. After noting possessed sufficient attachable assets meet obligations, imposed sentence one year $2,500. Petitioner's immediately suspend sentence. emphasized 65 age, health contended resulted from 'neglectful' inadvertent' method bookkeeping during period when suffering very serious drinking problem. Consequently, 'there never disposition deprive its due.' judge, indicating examined report, 'the manner which (petitioner's) books kept inadvertent.' declined, therefore, sentence.2 5 appeal Appeals Seventh Circuit, argued should set aside accepted violation Procedure. Specifically, (1) 'without first addressing (him) personally determining (was) made voluntarily understanding nature charge *,'3 (2) judgment without 'that there factual basis plea.'4 affirming conviction,5 held complied 11. implied did require address determine charge. also concluded colloquy at demonstrated satisfied himself an examination report basis.6 6 Because importance proper construction administration criminal law federal court,7 conflict courts appeals over effect district court's provisions Rule,8 we certiorari. 390 1038, 88 1635, 20 L. d.2d 300 (1968). We agree comply case; reversing Appeals, hold defendant is entitled anew accepts fully adhering provided decision based solely upon our pursuant supervisory power lower courts; do reach constitutional arguments urges additional grounds reversal. I. 7 directs pleads understands against aware plea. oral argument, repeatedly conceded point, quite explicitly: 'The subject (the Judge) directly defendant, raised here, question defendant's charges.' Nevertheless, argues since desire guilty, plea, 'could properly assume entering complete him.'9 (Emphasis added.) cannot completely ignores purposes reasons recent amendment. First, although embodied has constitutionally mandated,10 designed assist making required determination truly voluntary.11 Second, intended produce record time factors relevant voluntariness determination. Thus, more meticulously adhered to, tends discourage, least enable expeditious of, numerous often frivolous post-conviction attacks validity pleas.12 8 Prior 1966 amendment, judges interrogated accepting their pleas.13 With awareness confusion Rule's requirements respect, draftsmen amended add provision 'expressly requir(ing) personally.'14 clarification responsibilities obviously furthers both purposes. By interrogating only will better able ascertain plea's voluntariness, develop support subsequent attack. 9 These genesis A enters simultaneously waives several rights, including privilege compulsory self-incrimination, jury, confront accusers.15 For waiver valid Due Process Clause, 'an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege.' Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). equally voluntary knowing, obtained due process therefore void.16 Moreover, admission elements formal charge, unless possesses relation facts.17 10 addition directing into requires satisfy conduct admits constitutes offense indictment information included therein guilty.'18 Requiring between acts having committed 'protect position pleading realizing does actually fall within charge.'19 To extent thus exposes state mind through personal interrogation, facilitates own proceeding claim involuntary. Both goals are undermined proportion degree resorts 'assumptions' recorded responses i quiries. reason, reject contention can charge.20 II. 12 Having decided with, noncompliance issue engendered sharp difference among appeals. Heiden States, 353 F.2d 53 (1965), Ninth Circuit remanded another anew.21 Other appeals, consistently rejected holding, either expressly22 tacitly.23 Instead, adopted approach urged Government, place burden demonstrating See, e.g., Halliday 380 270 (C.A.1st Cir. 1967); Lane 373 570 (C.A.5th 1967).24 circuits, determined record, evidentiary issue. Kennedy 397 16 (C.A.6th 1968); supra. 13 persuaded rule. From perspective, efficacy shifting proof later questionable. meeting burden, undoubtedly rely statement frequently prima facie likely treated irrebuttable cases one, where reply limited plaintive allegations understand failed assert limit lesser offense. No matter how true be, rarely, ever, corroborate them post-plea hearing. 14 eliminate need resort fact-finding 'in highly subjective area.' supra, F.2d, 55. 'contemplates disputes action eliminated outset *.' Ibid. As Sixth explained discussing what termed 'persuasive rationale' Heiden: 'When ascertainment subsequently made, greater uncertainty bound exist resolution disputed contentions problems credibility reliability memory avoided Waddy Heer, 383 789, 794 (6 1967). There no adequate substitute him. 15 wisdom 11's difficulty achieving particularly apparent case. Petitioner, old problem allegedly evaded taxes. crime 'knowing willful' attempt defraud money;25 yet, throughout hearing, insisted merely 'neglectful,' 'inadvertent,' 'any Remarks cast considerable doubt assertion full confronted volition,' counsel's charges, evidence owe back voluntary. Despite inability convince below him, certainly conceivable acknowledge fact owed money claimed necessarily admitting charged; type specific intent disavowed. See Sansone 343, 85 1004, 882 (1965). evasion appear possible adequately closely related offenses, mere misdemeanors.26 17 other hand, scrupulously 11, speculation. entered, replies inquiries might l attested essential charged, requirement intent, knowledge formed Otherwise, could accepted. Similarly, follows that, developed properly, freely intelligently, references neglect inadvertence summarily dismissed nothing than overzealous supplications leniency. 18 conclude prejudice inheres deprives procedural safeguards facilitate accurate Our holding whose afforded opportunity insure every accused those safeguards, help reduce great waste judicial resources convictions encouraged, difficult dispose original inadequate. It is, too much defendants imprisonment, take few minutes necessary inform rights taking. 19 reverse remand proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. Judgment reversed remanded. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 21 portion follows: 'Mr. Sokol (petitioner's counsel): If please, I advised McCarthy time, behalf like heretofore Count 2. Counts. 23 Court: Is satisfactory government? 24 Hughes (Government Satisfactory government, your Honor. government Counts 25 regard Count? 26 Sokol: just 27 Not until thereon. 28 Hughes: Correct. 29 evasion, ten? 30 Yes, Honor, maximum penalty 31 lawyer tells me you want second indictment; true? 32 'Defendant McCarthy: 33 You indictment, waiving trial? 34 35 incarcerated term exceed years? 36 37 fined amount excess $10,000? 38 39 Knowing still persist guilty? 40 41 show being persists finding form finding. 42 'Now, 3? Your them. request ask promises thre ts made. 43 No, threats. 44 am going himself. Have 45 46 Has anybody threatened didn't something happen you? 47 beg pardon? 48 49 That's right, my volition, 50 All right. Enter pre-trial order continue 14th day September. Same bond stand.' B 51 following: 52 apart wrecking physical attended number relate case, man experienced kind punishment, self-inflicted, almost categorical listing flees, actually, use word advisedly, flees consequence punishment consequence. sad thing age sixty-five rear, wife, family, leave legacy this. submit needs deterrent. imagine man—apart conventional contrition, actively sought out overcome become very, psychological spoke Sanculius probation officer), knew given some reference attestations facts, here. 54 'With respect itself, took single step delude investigating officer start, Counsel matter. extended—in words, open answered questions readily. 55 shape to—and opinion, inadvertent. 56 When neglectful adopts devious way secreting thing, mindful indicia fraud. But man's pattern this—he sloppy gross, unaccountable, speak. 57 'There direct relationship taxation. Now, point connection commenced zeroed in, disclosure Blue Cross check, depositing account absolutely whatever government. deeply involved protracted situation hospital weeks. His avoid really needing somebody lead around nose said, wife 'You put yourself jurisdiction brother,' indication supposed deposit assets. They feel look oppressed, sense people so. particular history situation, perhaps guess Freudian terms free himself—and government—in felt trap he, sixty-two sixty-three little boy, different bank account. dis osition due. 'He acted, call normal consequence, interview man, even once, indicates has—and boy—if lying says, 'Oh, yes.' 59 act contemplation avoiding That natural best described gross neglect, please. 60 'I have, good conscience, recommended go reaches certain stage. part elaborate scheme course acting return that— series four years, it, counsel? 61 because, real accountability spending money. 62 Well, sure stepped why, lasted eight years. 63 already done this, drinking, psychiatric problem, already, speak, contained himself, did, addition, seek Abraham Angram, associate guiding path. had—I occurred. fait accompli.' 64 BLACK, concurring. concur, though doubt, reversal conviction seems base concurrence 'supervisory power' Court, exclusively personally, quoted Appendix A. Defense incomes B. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. added amendment became effective 1966. italicized following quotation Rule: 'A or, consent court, nolo contendere. refuse shall contendere refuses corporation fails appear, plea.' 387 838 (C.A.7th 1968). Advisory Committee suggests methods exists plea: inquiring defendant; prosecutor; (3) examining report. Notes Rules. During 1968 approximately 86% (22,055 25,674) substantial equivalent, Director Administrative Office Courts Ann.Rep. 261. nn. 23, infra. agrees demonstrates However, concession argument reversible error, consider supports Appeals' conclusion 789 Machibroda 368 487, 493, 510, 513, 473 (1962); Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 68 316, 92 309 (1948); Waley Johnston, 316 101, 964, 86 1302 (1942). Stephens 376 (C.A.10th Cir.), cert. denied 389 881, 124, 176 (1967); Rimanich 357 537 1966); Kadwell 315 667, 669 n. (C.A.9th 1963); Orfield, Pleas Procedure, Notre Dame Law. 31—32 (1959). Walter E. Hoffman Eastern Virginia '(t)he multitude presented furnish most frequent attack popular available prisoners.' Hoffman, What Next Rules?, Wash. & Lee L.Rev. (1964). Under 11:12 (1966); Enker, Perspectives Plea Bargaining, President's Comm'n Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Task Force Report: Courts, A, 116 Note, Guilty Bargaining: Compromises Prosecutors Secure Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 865, 871—872 D. Newman, Conviction, Determination Guilt Innocence Without Trial ABA Project Minimum Standards Justice: Relating 1.4(a), commentary (Tent.Draft inquiry vary and, establish general guidelines expressed itself. discussion facts suggests, encompasses seem prerequisite meaning inquiries, '(m)atters reality, ritual, controlling.' 16, separate panels applied retroactively Geter 208 Freeman 350 940, 943 en banc apply date decided. Castro 396 345 1967) ('at (pre-amended) 11'); denied, Brokaw 508 (C.A.4th 1966), 386 996, 87 1316, 344 (1967) (at raises issues voluntariness). Del Piano, 436 (C.A.3d 1967), 392 936, 2306, 1395 (1968); Kincaid, 362 939 Bartlett 354 745 (C.A.8th 1966). Moore, Practice 11.03(1), 11—22 (2d ed. see ex rel. Irwin Pate, 911 Willfully filing fraudulent false misdemeanor 7207 Code, willfully failing 7203 close interrelationship offenses felony convicted detail Sansone.

Category: 0