Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/384/855/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 21:29:25
Document Index: 621616263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 1001', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 9', '§ 504', '§ 9', '§ 504', '§ 9', '§ 9']

DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 384 U. S. 855 (1966) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 384 > DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 384 U. S. 855 (1966)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 384 U. S. 855
(c) Congress regarded the filing of truthful affidavits, not the mere filing of affidavits, as essential to the privilege of using NLRB services. P. 384 U. S. 862. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
346 F.2d 10, reversed and remanded. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 9(h), which was later repealed, [Footnote 2] provided that labor unions could not secure Labor Board investigation of employee representation or the issuance of a complaint unless there was on file with the Board so-called chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We first discuss the question, considered both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, [Footnote 4] whether the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Nor can it be concluded that a conspiracy of the described nature and objective is outside the condemnation of the specific clause of § 371 relied upon in the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Petitioners argue, however, that their conduct cannot be considered as fraudulent for purposes of § 371 because the Labor Board is required to certify the compliance of any union whose officers have filed non-Communist affidavits -- without regard to the veracity thereof. Leedom v. International Union, 352 U. S. 145, and Meat Cutters v. Labor Board, 352 U. S. 153. The claim is that since the Board's action in making its services available to the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Still another argument is advanced to defeat the indictment. Petitioners submit that this case does not involve a conspiracy to defraud, but rather, under the alternative clause of § 371, a conspiracy to commit the substantive offense of filing false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It is their contention that Bridges v. United States, 346 U. S. 209, compels the conclusion chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the present case, on the other hand, the allegation as to conspiracy to defraud, as we have discussed, properly reflects the essence of the alleged offense. It does not involve an attempt by prosecutorial sleight of hand to overcome a time bar. [Footnote 8] The fact that the events include chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Petitioners next urge that we set aside their convictions on the ground that § 9(h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is unconstitutional. In particular, they rely upon United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, in which the Court held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder the statute enacted by Congress in 1959 to replace § 9(h). The new statute made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to hold office or any other substantial employment in a labor union. [Footnote 9] They contend that Brown in effect overruled chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We need not reach this question, for petitioners are in no position to attack the constitutionality of § 9(h). They were indicted for an alleged conspiracy, cynical and fraudulent, to circumvent the statute. Whatever might be the result where the constitutionality of a statute is challenged by those who of necessity violate its provisions and seek relief in the courts is not relevant here. This is not such a case. The indictment here alleges an effort to circumvent the law, and not to challenge it -- a purported compliance with the statute designed to avoid the courts, not to invoke their jurisdiction. [Footnote 11] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
303 U.S. at 303 U. S. 6. See also United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214, involving a false claim for money under the subsequently invalidated Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Analogous are those cases in which prosecutions for perjury have been permitted despite the fact that the trial at which the false testimony was elicited was upon an indictment stating no federal offense (United States v. Williams, 341 U. S. 58, 341 U. S. 65-69); that the testimony was before a grand jury alleged to have been tainted by governmental misconduct (United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567, 569 (C.A.2d Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 913); or that the defendant testified without having been advised of his constitutional rights (United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204, 208-210 (C.A.2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 955, and cases cited therein). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Because the claimed invalidity of § 9(h) would be no defense to the crime of conspiracy charged in this indictment, we find it unnecessary to reconsider Douds. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
346 F.2d 17. It went so far as to express the view that "it would have been safer to have inspected the grand jury testimony." Id. at 18. But, because
In general, however, the Court has confirmed the trial court's power under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
These developments are entirely consonant with the growing realization that disclosure, rather than suppression, of relevant materials ordinarily promotes the proper administration of criminal justice. This realization is reflected in the enactment of the so-called Jencks Act, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Certainly in the context of the present case, where the Government concedes that the importance of preserving chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3. The testimony of the four witnesses concerned conversations and oral statements made in meetings. It was largely uncorroborated. Where the question of guilt or innocence may turn on exactly what was said, the defense is clearly entitled to all relevant aid which is chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A conspiracy case carries with it the inevitable risk of wrongful attribution of responsibility to one or more of the multiple defendants. See, e.g., United States v. Bufalino, 285 F.2d 408, 417-418 (C.A.2d Cir. 1960). Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the defense, the judge and the jury should have the assurance that the doors that may lead to truth have been unlocked. In our adversary system for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarely justifiable for the prosecution to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact. [Footnote 20] Exceptions to this are justifiable only by the clearest and most compelling considerations. For this chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 410 (dissenting opinion). Nor is it realistic to assume that the trial court's judgment as to the utility of material for impeachment or other legitimate purposes, however chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This prosecution, now approaching its second decade and third trial, is a natural offspring of the McCarthy era. For reasons set out in Part III of the Court's opinion, I agree that it was reversible error for the trial court to deny petitioners' motion to examine the Grand chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The indictment charges, as it was compelled to charge in order to show that the offense of conspiring to defraud the Government had been committed, that the petitioners' alleged fraud interfered with "lawful" and "proper" functions of government. Had the indictment failed to charge that the functions obstructed were "lawful" and "proper," it would have been fatally defective under our prior cases accepted by the Court today which state that an essential element of the crime of defrauding the Government is the obstruction of a "lawful" and "legitimate" governmental function. United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 383 U. S. 172; Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 315 U. S. 66; Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U. S. 182, 265 U. S. 188; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 216 U. S. 479. Accordingly, in holding that petitioners have no right to challenge § 9(h), the Court must conclude that, even if § 9(h) is a bill of attainder, petitioners have nevertheless conspired to interfere with some lawful and legitimate function of government. Yet the Court nowhere points out any governmental function that could have been interfered with by the false affidavits except functions performed under § 9(h) which the Court for purposes of this argument assumes is a bill of attainder. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Our Government has not heretofore been thought of as one which sends its citizens to prison without giving them a chance to challenge validity of the laws which are the very foundation upon which criminal charges against them rest. Yet the Court refuses to allow petitioners to attack § 9(h) on the ground that "the claimed invalidity of § 9(h) would be no defense to the crime of conspiracy charged in this indictment. . . ." It is indeed a novel doctrine if the unconstitutionality of a law which forms the very nucleus of a criminal charge cannot be a defense to that charge. Certainly the Court does not deny that violation of the § 9(h) requirement for non-Communist oaths is an essential if not indeed the only ingredient of the crime for which the Government seeks to place petitioners in jail. The indictment properly charged unlawful compliance with § 9(h) as an essential element, if indeed not the whole crime laid at petitioners' door. Congress has passed no law which requires the Court to refuse to consider petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of § 9(h). Nor are there any prior cases of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The cases relied on by the majority cannot, in my judgment, properly be stretched to support the Court's holding that petitioners have no right to challenge § 9(h) as a bill of attainder. In United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214, relied on by the Court, the defendants conspired through use of false statements to secure benefit payments under the Agricultural Adjustment Act to which they were not entitled under the Act itself. For this, they were indicted. At trial, they contended that they could not be prosecuted because the Agricultural Adjustment Act had been declared unconstitutional. This Court properly rejected that defense. In that case, Kapp was convicted of conspiring to get money out of the Treasury to which he had no possible right, whether the statute was constitutional or unconstitutional. The alleged conspiracy was to defraud the Government of money by people who, under no circumstances, had or could have had any legitimate claim to the money. So also, in Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1, as in Kapp, the defendants made false statements in order to get benefits from the Government which were not due them whether the Home Owners' Loan Act was constitutional or unconstitutional. In none of the other cases relied on by the Court today do we have the situation present in this case. Here, if § 9(h) is unconstitutional, petitioners' union has always been entitled to services of the Labor Board before any affidavits were filed, when they were filed, or after they were filed. By filing false affidavits, petitioners got for their union no more than it was entitled to if the statute is unconstitutional. In chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In 1959, Congress repealed § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act and enacted § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. 73 Stat. 536, 29 U.S.C. § 504 (1964 ed.). Section 504 made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer of a labor union. Last year, this Court, in United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, held § 504 to be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. In doing so, the Court said, "Section 504 was designed to accomplish the same purpose as § 9(h), but in a more direct and effective way." 381 U.S. at 381 U. S. 439, n. 2. In this case, the Government argues with understandable brevity, feebleness and unpersuasiveness that there is a crucial distinction between § 504, which it has to admit is a bill of attainder, and § 9(h) which it contends is not. This alleged crucial distinction amounts to no more than an assertion that the punishment under § 504 is more severe than that under § 9(h). This distinction is hard to grasp, and harder to accept. Section 504 made it a crime for a Communist to hold office in a labor union. Section 9(h) made it just as impossible for a Communist to hold union office, though it reached this result in a different way. Section 9(h) provided that a union could not receive the services of the Labor Board if the union had any Communist officers and required all union officers to file affidavits stating they were not Communists as a condition of their unions' receiving the Board's services. The practical effect of § 9(h) was that a union officer who was a Communist was forced either to file a false affidavit, for which he could have been prosecuted, or to chanroblesvirtualawlibrary