Opinion ID: 170720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legislative history behind the 1996 amendment

Text: In May, 1995, Congressman Martini introduced H.R. 1678, which applied section 1001 to all three branches of the Federal Government, without exception. At a Crime Subcommittee hearing on June 30, 1995, witnesses expressed concern that the broad application of section 1001 to all three branches would chill advocacy in judicial proceedings and also undermine the fact-gathering process that is indispensable to the legislative process. In response to these concerns, Representative Martini introduced H.R. 3166 on March 27, 1996, which included a judicial function exception, exempting from the scope of section 1001 those representations made by a party or party's counsel to a judge during a judicial proceeding. ... H.R. 3166 applies section 1001 to all three branches of the U.S. Government, with two exceptions. First, the bill does not apply section 1001 to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge in that proceeding. Such an exception is intended to codify the judicial function exception which has long been recognized by many Federal courts as necessary to safeguard from the threat of prosecution statements made in the course of adversarial litigation. Allowing the criminal penalties of section 1001 to apply to statements made in the course of adversarial litigation would chill vigorous advocacy, thereby undermining the adversarial process. The exception is consistent with the Court's reasoning in [ United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955)], and [ Morgan v. United States, 309 F.2d 234 (D.C.Cir.1962)], and subsequent case law, which consistently distinguished the adjudicative from the administrative functions of the court, exempting from section 1001 only those communications made to the court when it is acting in its adjudicative or judicial capacity, and leaving subject to section 1001 those representations made to the court when it is functioning in its administrative capacity. Thus, false statements uttered during the course of court proceedings or contained in court pleadings would not be covered by section 1001. The language of the exception recognizes that a wide range of filings are an integral part of the adversarial process, and therefore goes beyond merely exempting statements, exempting as well representations, writings or documents submitted to the judge. Importantly, such filings made in judicial proceedings are already covered by other statutes, further limiting any supposed necessity of covering these filings with section 1001. H. Rep. 104-680, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1996, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3935, 3937-38 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). As to the judicial function exception, the House Report continued: [S]ubsection (b) provides that section 1001 does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge in that proceeding. As such, section 1001 does not apply to representations made to a court that is acting in its judicial, or adjudicatory capacity; Rather, it applies only to representations made to a court acting in its administrative capacity .... The judicial function exception provided in subsection (b) is intended to codify the judicial function exception as articulated in Bramblett. Consequently, consistent with Bramblett, only those representations made to a court when it is acting in its administrative or housekeeping capacity are within the scope of section 1001. Such representations would include any filings not related to a proceeding before the court, such as submissions related to bar membership, and would also include the submission of information to another entity within the judicial branch, such as the probation service. Id. at 3942-43 (emphasis added). The 1996 amendment thus sought to reinstate the judicial function exception as it existed pre- Hubbard. In addition, Congress intended the exception not to encompass submissions of information to ... the probation service. Id. at 3943. Having concluded the judicial function exception is extant  indeed, codified  and has Congressionally delineated parameters, we consider its application to the case at hand: Was Officer Budzinsky's preparation of the PSR and presentation of the PSR, containing Mr. Manning's statements, equivalent to a party's statement to a judge? To answer this, we consider the role of Probation Officer Budzinsky.