Document: 365 U.S. 146 81 S.Ct. 547 5 L.Ed.2d 476 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Roy FRUEHAUF et al. No. 91. Argued Jan. 11, 1961. Decided Feb. 20, Rehearing Denied April 3, See 875, 899. Mr. S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., New York City, for appellant. Louis Nizer, appellees. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On June 17, 1959, an indictment in two counts was filed United States District Court Southern against appellees Roy Fruehauf, Fruehauf Trailer Co., Burge Seymour, Associated Transport, Inc., and Brown Equipment Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to collectively as Fruehauf-Seymour group)1 appellee Dave Beck. The first count, based on § 302(a) Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 157, 29 U.S.C. 186(a), U.S.C.A. which makes it unlawful 'for any employer pay or deliver, agree money other thing value representative his employees who are employed industry affecting commerce,'2 charged that about 21, 1954, each group, employers engaged commerce, 2 'did unlawfully, wilfully knowingly deliver Beck, President, International Brotherhood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America, a aforesaid employees, value, wit, money, amount $200,000.' 3 second 302(b), 186(b), similarly couched words statute,3 Beck had received accepted, agreed receive accept, from $200,000. All entered pleas not guilty; after various pretrial proceedings, during course 'trial memoranda' were submitted by Government several appellees, case came trial. At outset hearing, district judge suggested if, he advised trial memoranda certain among them intended move dismissal indictment, such motion should be made at time. Counsel replied they 'would better position address ourselves grounds government opening here, * if inquiry this pretrial, preliminary conference, conceded positions has arraignment places minutes.' then read into record extended excerpt Government's memorandum4 purported outline 'facts support charge intends prove.' These were: (A) That asked 'lend him $200,000,' 'loan' subsequently discussed meeting attorneys Co.; unsuccessful attempts 'place loan' with officers banks, 'Fruehauf Seymour found necessary arrange loan without aid financial institutions and, instead, processed through (Roy president), Transport (Burge latter's wholly owned subsidiary Co.' (B) 'The method otherwise simple transfer $200,000.00 effected is fairly complex one, apparently caused difficulties encountered defendant effectuating what have called but their corporations learning transaction.' (C) '(T)he details circuitous financing operations (sic)' follows: Inasmuch 'Neither nor wished effect use personal funds,' 'neither felt respective could overtly finance funds embarrassing themselves,' determined Company actually make Beck.' Thereupon, (1) 'transferred' $175,000 check exchange Brown's promissory note, payable December 30, 'purporting bear interest 5% per annum,' whereas, fact, 'no ever paid to, even anticipated by, corporation.' (2) Brown, same date, transferred $200,000 return Beck's note 4% annum, 1954—a requisition form falsely listed object being explained conceal 'the people borrowing funds.' (3) Associated, Brown. One week later, returned $175,000, lent Fruehauf. 'after renegotiated Manufacturers Trust Co.,' remaining $25,000 Associated. ('It noted supposed did not, repay 1954.') (4) 27, borrowed annum 90 days collateralizing obligations others, including attorney (5) $2,066.66 Trust, dated March 1955, bank. (6) 'Beck remitting $163,215. $36,785. endorsed Brown.' (7) 'Only $4,000 interest, approximately half due, remitted (from Co.'s attorney) Seymour.' Having portion memorandum purpose making known government's position, least matter loan,' ruled 'in my view statement judicial admission transaction loan. As verify belief, later argues its brief value. So least, so far I am concerned, there can no dispute loan, we now resolved question whether under these circumstances illegal statute *.' 4 '(O)n basis disclosure understands government,' court asked, again, heard dismiss. point, counsel interposed 'to communicate one thought may been communicated brief.' He stated: 'Despite fact repeated word advance before Court, large part asserted defendants will reflect proceeds, nevertheless hope clear progresses, twofold. 6 'A your Honor please, something relates state mind between person receiving giving again repayment occurred only aspect party another 7 'Now, quite specific, simply say takes reiterating facts know defendants, having repeatedly used 'loan,' necessarily so, because when made, prove goes stages, accompanied attributes here those items present case.' 8 After adverting size collateral given, institutions, although require payment, due terms concluded: 'That our position. And law still encompassed within statute.' replied: 9 'I do think anything you said detracts argument memorandum, going intend entertain application respect indictment.' 10 moved dismiss ground, prohibition statute. Argument had, reiterated position: 11 Court: Assuming tried disposed frame special interrogatories jury, was, Was jury brought back answer No: allow stand set forth brief, wouldn't aside finding contrary evidence weight evidence? 12 'Mr. Guzzetta: Your Honor, context remarks open would erroneous them. 13 In words, despite held loan? When forth, mean memorandum. 14 Guzzetta' indicate, If wasn't determine hear was—that outer clothing, fabricated highly intercorporate transaction, didn't clearly, come There problem all. Secondly, decided preclude verdict guilty 15 granted motions all It ruled: 16 convinced language doubt own either hearing where yet subjected themselves jeopardy, established recounted prove, aside, find contrary. Those facts, view, notwithstanding qualifications attempted orally, accepting qualifications, establish pure 17 '* must resolve violative time not.' 18 From oral ruling direct appeal pursuant Criminal Appeals 3731, 3731. sole presented Jurisdictional Statement 'whether comes prohibitions' 302 1947.5 Briefs proceeded upon assumption question, properly raised record, thus shaped, presupposed substantial reality bona fides 'loan.' Government, response questions bench, light framing issues appeal, theory Beck-Fruehauf-Seymour incontestable, good-faith fair rate lack immaterial. However, subsequent communication addressed opposing Solicitor General, took 'that take account disposing salient developed prosecutor taken dismissing considered factual presented; comprised covered Section 302, 302.' 19 put review left unclear. An cast statutory dismissed failure offense meaning legislation whose employs, ground (as expressed Court) constituted 'judicial loan.' portions rests establish, most, year group 'interest,' 'approximately due.' putting variance proof might emerge trial, seemingly out violations number alternative theories: sham, mere ruse covering device pass gift bribe money; irrespective intention, acceptance plus satisfaction obligation twice forbidden delivery unpaid Beck; sum significantly lower than commercial difference on; rate, transaction—by available large, unsecured gotten normal channels resulted 'thing value,' namely, benefit hand; particular incidents loans, such, violate statute, itself value' employees' representative, consideration payment every qua comports 'delivery' loaned, (regardless repayment) violates 302.6 Court's that, appears foreclosed pursuing some, probably theories. Which viewed closed remains uncertain. hand, representation General does leave unequivocally clear, controversy allowed go (if all) theories regard open. issue sure construction distinguished proved consistently admission') posed fifth above—the posed, most evidently abstract form, money,' 'comes (statute's) prohibitions.' 20 We reach appeal. For cannot it—abstracted become, immediate considerations disposition appellees' incontestably valid face—as request advisory opinion. Such opinions, expressions legal judgment remain unfocused pressed concreteness provided emerges precisely framed decision clash adversary exploring multifaceted situation embracing conflicting demanding interests, refused give. Parker v. Los Angeles County, 338 327, 70 161, 94 L.Ed. 144; Rescue Army Municipal 331 549, 67 1409, 91 1666; Public Workers America (C.I.O.) Mitchell, 330 75, 556, 754; Alabama State Federation McAdory, 325 450, 65 1384, 89 1725; Arizona California, 283 423, 51 522, 75 1154. 21 Nor raise concerning sufficiency require, appropriate case, sent Appeals, construed allegations limited scope presentation bill particulars prosecutor's statement. reference attributed Without spelling detail diverse argumentative possibilities underlie judge's attribution defined concept suffices experience instances similar unclarity Act counsels wisdom abstaining reviewing criminal cloudy Compare Colgate & 250 300, 39 465, 63 992, A. Schrader's Son, 252 85, 40 251, 64 471. 22 core difficulty attempting ban reason possible Of course, undertaking however honorable impulse, bind future. ruling, insofar purports close avenues indictment—not specifications statement, admission' culled memorandum—was impermissible constitutes insufficient justify exercise jurisdiction 23 think, however, Rule 28 U.S.C.A., requires us penalize simpliciter. This power, expressly 2106, 'vacate, reverse judgment, decree, order lawfully review, remand cause further proceedings just circumstances.' authority here. remanded indictment. ordered. 24 Dismissal remanded. 25 STEWART, dissenting. 26 placed squarely court's Specifically, fall 1947 (before amendment 1959). bringing directly eliminated correctness underlying statute—to Act. Keitel, 211 370, 397—398, 123, 131, 53 230; Patten, 226 525, 535, 540, 33 141, 142, 57 333; 301, 306, 466, 992; Borden 308 188, 192—194, 60 182, 185, 84 181. '(I)n supra, validity contested whole case." Petrillo, 332 1, 5, 1538, 1541, 1877. 27 proscriptions decided. us. since thinks otherwise, persuaded expression views subject appropriate. President Inc. 505 Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure 73 537, enacted September 14, amended section read, pertinent part: 'It shall association acts labor relations expert, adviser, consultant pay, lend, value— '(1) commerce *'. Count Two 'On 21st day June, accept (the group), alleged, provided: value.' 505, parallel version 302(a), 2, supra. part, judge, prefixed statement: 'This supplying general analysis together exposition decsional (sic) regarding crime instant differs Notice Appeal, stated 'Whether (of commerce) intending (b) Subsection (c) excepts five enumerated situations section's broad receipt value: e.g., 302(c)(3) provides applicable 'with sale purchase article commodity prevailing market price regular business.'

Category: 8