Document: 336 U.S. 613 69 S.Ct. 766 93 L.Ed. 919 NYE & NISSEN et al.v.UNITED STATES. No. 228. Argued March 3, 1949. Decided April 18, Mr. Joseph B. Keenan, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Philip Elman, respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 Nye Nissen is a corporation which during years covered by indictment was engaged in business purchasing and selling eggs, butter, cheese San Francisco. Throughout this period Moncharsh president corporation, one its directors, owner one-third stock holding company had sole owners ip Nissen. Moncharsh's mother owned interest company, while other third Baum who lived New York. Berman Goddard were brothers-in-law Moncharsh—the former being city sales manager charge company's retail salesmen, latter shipping receiving clerk. Menges another employee. 2 During from 1938 to 1944, made large products Army Navy and, after December, 1943, operators various vessels having general agency contracts with War Shipping Administration. 3 An seven counts returned on June 20, 1945, against Nissen, Moncharsh, Berman, Menges. The first count charged defendants conspired defraud United States violation § 37 Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, U.S.C.A. 88,1 now 371 designated fraudulent practices we will refer. six violations 35 80, 80,2 1001 misrepresenting invoices presented Administration May, weights, grades, prices specified eggs cheese. 4 acquitted. found guilty all counts, sentenced year day each count, terms run concurrently, fined $700. They did not appeal. $5,000 each. convicted two years' imprisonment five six, concurrently. He also count. On appeal judgments conviction affirmed. 168 F.2d 846. case here petition certiorari granted because doubts whether substantive could be sustained under theory Pinkerton v. States, 328 640, 66 1180, 90 1489, Court Appeals seemed rely. 5 Two preliminary questions are presented. It argued place that there variance prejudicial between conspiracy proof, evidence tended show existence separate conspiracies differen characters involving different persons. contention continuing involved circumvention Government's inspection system relation sale eggs. said proof showed distinct conspiracies—the embracing Goddard, an undertaking impeding impairing 1942; second alone agreement 1943 file false vouchers We need take space relate why have been prejudiced, argument seems us lack merit. submitted jury basis single throughout alleged indictment. That proper, as read it ways: grading agencies Government inferior through frauds practiced upon inspectors representatives; defeating functions government inspection, grading, weighing, purchase cheese; utilizing schemes circumvent avoid standards, specifications orders subject; grade, weight, price fact certain types occurred at periods without significance. presentation part parcel same proved. There abundance evidence, held, conclude continuous persistent defraud. conceivable might beginning or thereabouts severed himself his subordinates carried forward their own. But reverse them if taxed credulity. 6 trial court erred admitting crimes similar those prove intent acts committed. Each invoice. eleven invoices. This received support admitted conclusion 'for purpose proving intent, motive, knowledge' defendants. Evidence related offenses committed consistent pattern conduct highly relevant issue intent.3 7 principal question pertains concerning sufficiency them. 8 In supra, charged. held conspirator offense even though he no more than join conspiracy, rovided furtherance it. A verdict requires submission issues jury. done here. Hence argues entitled new trial. 9 difficulty equally valid theory. 'who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures commission act responsible directly.' well engrained law. See s 332 550 (now 2);4 Johnson, 319 503, 518, 63 1233, 1240, 87 1546; Dotterweich, 320 277, 281, 64 134, 136, 88 48. order aid abet commit crime necessary defendant 'in some sort associate venture, participate something wishes bring about, seek action make succeed.' L.Hand, J., Peoni, Cir., 100 401, 402. 10 direct tying counts. Yet circumstantial wholly adequate finding aided abetted offenses. Thus promoter long scheme defraud, making project, makers subordinates, family chief business, it, brothers-in-law, office where out. 11 Those activities extended when constitute ample record reeking fraud associated may served double duty supporting course immaterial. 12 see therefore reason exculpate him aider abettor. inadequacy Nor conflict supra. rule does service character described Aiding abetting has broader application. makes consciously shares any criminal conspiracy. And charged, difference so far aiding concerned pursuant narrow scope. rests base; states responsibility assists performing. particular conceivably either irrelevant. sufficient adduced verdict. 13 Affirmed. 14 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 15 Scarcely recital history these proceedings expose reasons I cannot agree 16 defendants, indicted States. correctly instructed findings count; defined what remaining 6, 1946, appealed, challenging, inter alia, 17 To sustain crimes, chose insist urged instead applicability decision decided 10, 1946. Appeals, regarding controlling, eloquently silent abetting. finds conviction. cannot. explicit supply participation offenses, regard finding, they one, existed but do only 'provided referred unlawful * *.' 645—646, 1183, Note 6. Here lacking, such charge, rejecting 19 thus recognizes doctrine available (1) connection (2) establishing guilt used unless exist. importance requirements lies this: properly standards applied exist determining Bollenbach 326 607, 613—615, 402, 405—406, 350. sufficient, fulfill required standards. 20 If all, should contained would supported remains possibility affirming ground nevertheless contains abetting, since submit legally proper exposition apparently fulfilled established. challenges jury's right find; insists insufficient establish As came before feel called meet challenge. evidently due shifted position—a shift doubtless reduced decision, rendered went jury, offered tempting short-cut 21 supports can answered facing petitioner's challenge insufficiency evidence. hardly met examining bits pieces reliance atmospheric emanations guilt. whole must canvassed, state Court's precludes undertaking. task especially avoided view provision Evarts Act 1891, underlined Judiciary 1925, appeals final Courts reserving grant further review rare instances serious law presents true public importance. evidentiary exemplifies precisely burdensome features led Congress free wasteful responsibility. comprises twelve volumes, including 4,630 pages. brought canvassing record. undertake merely unexpectedly presented, nor contribute sound judicial administration adopting conclusion, necessarily partial examination record, itself, examined refrained adopting.1 Our sense committed; our applicable procedural satisfied. Now rejected unnecessary pass remand so. Bates 323 15, 65 89 13. 22 Plainly happily relieved By failing so, however, leaves room doubt regarded demning establishes Granted tending association immaterial, absence instruction given case, points 'evidence defraud,' adds 'those committed.' statement face way saying surely contemporaneous unrelated instrument crimes. 23 needed inform conditions use evid nce serves function, bearing For reasons, therefore, assumed, assumed constituting Without more, entitle draw inferences supplying defendant's Lacking instruction, fill out 24 am left doubt, lieu fabricating itself inference defendant, position inevitably abettor appellate drawn every case. create, words, presumption whenever conspiring B C X, Y Z pass, L, M N, life N. 25 Clarity indispensable Anglo-American notions justice; less guidance district courts future prosecutions Such appropriate reach combination united accomplish purposes; concept invitation safeguards prosecution special boast democratic society device guilt, personal responsibility, association, pains forestall implication My brother JACKSON impressively shown grave dangers abuse charges readily lend themselves. Krulewitch 440, 716. Conference Senior Circuit Judges strikingly pointed out, along judges observed abuses practice warned 26 'There increasing tendency recent prosecutors indict sufficiently offiense punished; but, actually persons, usually crime, itself. Prosecutors seem think statutes limitations many rules established protection persons disregarded. mysterious potency word 'conspiracy.' committed, my opinion, else conspiracy.' Kissel, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 173 F. 823, 828. 27 Neither resort 28 canvassed among admission f mean imply views. stated, believe judgment reversed remanded Appeals. 29 RUTLEDGE opinion. 30 MURPHY, 31 petitioners 1945. specific fraud. Serious attack petitioners' convictions upholds convictions. perpetration offenses; 2, principal, 32 lasted nearly three months. judge's began analysis several definitions term Some traditional. 'If person, understanding transaction, encourages, advises, manner, enterprise scheme, prosecution, becomes conspirator.' Later definition 'abetting' given. immediately followed statement: 'In connection' declarations admissible conspirators. 33 judge then passed charged: 'One induces directly.'1 jurors told 'counsel' 'induce' signified. Abetting, context defined. Most important, how belief attempt sketch differences counseling, inducing, conspiring. 34 upheld Court, then, offense. Finding holds failure instruct relationship unimportant. agree. Conviction guiltless bystander is, course, great danger tried together. letter written, call made, foundation laid. subject temptation generalizing; confusion harder resist. interpreted today, attempted process. conspiracy's mere joiner substance warn 36 policy cautions voluminous instructions particular, replete possibilities juror. 'well law.' is. 2; 401. Attorneys accurate idea constitutes aiding, procuring. Counseling, context, means advising, recommending. Although 'conspiracy' variety things, 716, concurring real ze least implicit mark somewhat apart example, inducing. Thomas 57 1039, 1042; Mack, 112 290, 292. 38 Precise words lawyer's craft. expect too much juror ask intelligent distinctions three-month quoted above—in area difficult enough seasoned attorney. Sall, 116 745, overruled 39 scarcely possible. offenses—the Government. interprets Pinkerton, beyond improper, warning know, determinative room. 40 deciding convict, triers considered improper presence relevance whatever. At very least, contemplated remote plotting embraced simple 'conspiracy,' page although both 41 Guilt prosecution. Its consequences magic 'counseling' 'inducing' injected 'define' high. hard assess effect unsophisticated defendants' bad conduct. warning. indispensable. 42 innocence relatively today's trials, indeed. gives comfort dragnet justice. reversed. conspire manner purpose, parties object shall $10,000, imprisoned years, both.' 'Whoever cause present payment approval, person officer civil, military, naval department thereof, America stockholder, claim knowing false, fictitious, fraudulent; whoever knowingly willfully falsify conceal cover up trick, material fact, statements representations, bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, deposition, contain fictitious entry matter within jurisdiction $10,000 ten Wigmore, (3d Ed., 1940) §§ 302—304; Wharton, (11th 1935) 349—352. directly commits commission, principal.' following excerpts clear firmly placed rather determination '* 'one gist appellant's (sic) respect substantial given, uninstructed. 'No authority cited point raised search fails reveal federal expressly considered. 'Whatever answer problem be, disregard go scope Appellants' contrary 'So existed, members acted carrying forward. project formation 854. Emphasis added.

Category: 0