Document: 395 U.S. 57 89 S.Ct. 1559 23 L.Ed.2d 94 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Henry Preston COVINGTON. No. 366. Argued Dec. 12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969. Philip A. Lacovara, for appellant, pro hac vice, by special leave of court. William J. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, appellee. Robert Haft, New York City, appellee Court. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion oft he 1 This is a companion case to Leary v. United States, 6, 1532, 57, decided today. Appellee was charged in one-court federal indictment Southern District Ohio with having violated 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(1), part Marihuana Tax Act, obtaining 737.1 grams marihuana without paid transfer tax imposed 4741(a).1 On appellee's motion, Court dismissed indictment, holding that under principles established Marchetti 390 39, 88 697, 19 889 (1968), Grosso 62, 709, 906 and Haynes 85, 722, 923 privilege against self-incrimination necessarily would provide complete defense prosecution. 282 F.Supp. 886 (1968). 2 motion reconsideration, Government advanced argument, more fully described Leary, supra, U.S., at 18 20, S.Ct., 1538—1540, provisions Act do not compel incriminatory disclosures because, as administratively construed applied, they allow prepayment only persons whose activities are otherwise lawful. The responded ruling alternative if required pay there could be no basis indictment. Appendix 20. 3 appealed directly this pursuant 3731, which authorizes direct appeal from dismissal an when decision one 'sustaining bar' or 'is based upon invalidity construction statute information founded.' We noted probable jurisdiction, 393 910, 238, 21 197 (1968),2 argued together supra. 4 As has been noted, on two grounds. begin second, that, assuming Government's correct, did charge offense statute. Our today makes it plain improper ground dismissal, we have held interpretation incorrect requires like prepay tax. See 20—26, 1539—1543. 5 Court's other Fifth Amendment does such unless plea untimely, defendant confronted substantial risk self-incrimination, waived. 27, 1543.3 also 61, Questions remain whether may ever justify so instance. 6 Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1) states that: 'Any objection capable determination trial general issue raised before motion.' A thus 'capable determination' facts surrounding commission alleged assistance determining validity defense.4 12(b)(4) allows its discretion postpone trial, permits factual hearings prior necessary resolve issues fact peculiar motion. 7 In many instances, prosecution will issue.' dismiss plainly timely. question faced incrimination usually law resolved reference circumstances offense. There frequently instances waiver suitable 'general issue.'5 However, waived law, most cases dispute about it. Hence, think defendant's assertion should sufficient create legal presumption nonwaiver, require can rebut showing need further inquiries. 8 Application these affirmance. asserted his possession illegal run had complied Act. reached same conclusion. appears acknowledge illegality possession.6 conclude possibility any regard hazard incrimination. 9 brief record indication privilege, never existence controversy score. 'just circumstances' finally disposed level. 28 2106; 71—72, 715, (1968); 100—101, 732, Accordingly, judgment 10 Affimed. 11 Chief WARREN, considering himself bound decisions concurs 12 STEWART joins premise stated concurring p. 54, 1557. relevant set out their relationships explained 14—15, 1536—1537. If rested defense, then bar.' States Murdock, 284 141, 52 63, 76 L.Ed. 210 (1931). finding offense, 'based * (was) Borden Co., 308 188, 193, 60 182, 186, 84 181 (1939). convicted 4744(a)(2), prohibiting transportation concealment who acquired itw ithout tax, while indicted forbidding acquisition. clear significant distinction between statutes purposes privilege. Moore, Practice 12.04 (R.Cripes ed.1968); L. Orfield, Under Rules §§ 12.51 12.60 (1966). Cf. 28—29, 1543—1544. Brief 3, n. 1.

Category: 0