Document: 348 U.S. 147 75 S.Ct. 194 99 L.Ed. 192 Daniel SMITH, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 52. Argued Oct. 21, 22, 1954. Decided Dec. 6, [Syllabus from 147-148 intentionally omitted] Mr.W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Mr.Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is third net worth cases and first dealing with Government's use extrajudicial statements made by accused. Petitioner his wife were jointly tried on five counts charging them willful attempts to evade defeat their income taxes years 1946 through 1950. A motion acquittal was granted as all counts, petitioner fifth count (for year 1950). The jury found guilty four conviction affirmed Court Appeals. 210 F.2d 496. We certiorari in order pass issues raised prosecution's defendant's statements. 347 1010, 74 868. 2 theory that increases exceeded reported each prosecution years, these increments represented taxable income. evidence tended show persons moderate means prior 1945, toward end acquired a racing-news service. In succeeding here issue, large amount visible wealth form bank accounts, real estate, securities, other assets. evidence, taken whole, prove had understated four-year period over $190,000. 3 this case stem statement signed Government agents along check, latter supposedly representing tax he thought due owing.1 statement, five-page document, included tables petitioner's returns, living expenses, listing assets 1945 1949, showing changes period. While pages headed names wife, only His signature appeared after clause describing 'my true covered herein.' 4 Admissibility Statement. 5 contends should not have been admitted because it procured pursuant an understanding between agent would be closed immunity. See Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 1, 14, 45 3, 69 131; Bram 168 532, 542—543, 18 183, 186—187, 42 568; Wilson 162 613, 622—623, 16 895, 899, 40 1090; Sparf Hansen 156 51, 55, 15 273, 275, 39 343. Petitioner's accountant, who carried negotiations agent, testified promised close if check cover deficiency forthcoming, he, never submitted believed basis. aware no such promises case. After pretrial hearing suppress trial judge refused statement. During course trial, hold outside presence determine preliminary statement's admissibility. He issue instruction they reject obtained it, 'trickery, fraud or deceit' practiced accountant. 6 deceit part properly jury, arriving at its general verdict, could conflicting fraudulent inducement offered cannot complain denied voir dire, cf. States Carignan, 342 36, 72 97, 96 48, since already held passing evidence. Moreover, seeking during testimony which heard narrated again dire denied. Under circumstances, said refusal deprived any substantial right. 7 Corroboration 8 second major objection related opening worth, corroborated—or insufficiently corroborated—by independent listed follows: Bank account...........$ 1,079.60 Residence.............. 12,000.00 Automobile........... __2,000.00 Total assets......... $15,079.60 credited higher worth: Cash banks ......... $8,058.58 Drug store partnership.. 5,618.39 Real estate............ 18,600.00 Furniture............... 2,000.00 Automobile.............__2,000.00 Total............... $36,276.97 9 determining figures, relied figures furnished admissions—for autos, furniture, one parcel estate. Any variation materially affect result.2 But further complains did corroborate negative implications assets—for example, cash hand—which reflected computation. question presented, therefore, whether there sufficient admission starting point account attributed him years. 10 rule accused may convicted own uncorroborated confession has previously recognized Court, Warszower 312 342, 61 603, 85 876; Isaacs 159 487, 229; Miles 103 304, 311 312, 26 481, consistently applied lower federal courts overwhelming majority state courts, Forte 68 App.D.C. 111, 94 236, 127 A.L.R. 1130; Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 2070—2072. Its purpose prevent 'errors convictions based upon untrue confessions alone', supra, 347, page 606; foundation lies long history judicial experience realization sound law enforcement requires police investigations extend beyond words Confessions unreliable are coerced induced, although separate doctrines exclude involuntary consideration supra; caution warranted unable establish nature though 'involuntary' within meaning exclusionary rule, still reliability suspect extracted under pressure investigation—whose reflect strain confusion attending predicament rather than clear reflection past. Finally, medical profession recounts number false voluntarily made, Note, 28 Ind.L.J. 374. These considerations justify restriction power convict, shared average juror. Nevertheless, does infringe province primary finder facts, application scrutinized lest restrictions imposes surpass dangers gave rise them. 11 requirement corroboration crime evasion. inception, served extremely limited function. convict serious crimes violence, then capital offenses, proof required someone indeed inflicted so-called corpus delicti. Once existence established, however, guilt otherwise confession. evasion tangible injury can isolated As crime, shown committed without identifying Thus we faced choice either applying offense according even greater protection affords defendant homicide prosecution, Evans Cir., 122 461; Murray 53 119, 288 F. 1008, finding wholly inapplicable offense, stripping guarantee altogether. choose apply broader guarantee, delicti, where corroborative must implicate committed. See, e.g., Tabor 152 254; Kertess, 139 923; Ercoli 76 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 131 354; Pines 123 825; 1120; Tingle 38 573; Wynkoop 22 799; Daeche 250 566. 12 next problem presented involved—the worth—must corroborated. Although document understatement income, elements evasion, admitting offense. There some uncertainty court opinions applies mere admissions, see 929; 356. 606. applicable statements, least where, case, fact official charged investigating possibility wrongdoing, embraces element vital case.3 Cf. Gulotta 113 683, assimilating admissions but failing distinguish before Accord, Duncan 136; Gordnier 261 910. 13 formed cornerstone guilt. Without hand beginning alleged increases, succeed. Holland 75, 127. An assumes importance presentation go uncorroborated, consider formal 'elements' subsidiary 'elements.' It practical relation crucial, theoretical definition 14 record inadmissible, cast doubt accuracy admissions. unreliability illustrated great variance calculation computation, consistent erring favor unreasonable word advantage. On carefully light available considerable debate concerning quantum necessary substantiate charged. agreed reasonable doubt, preponderance, committed, whole proves guilty. Gregg 687; Jordan 60 4; supra. Fenwick, 177 488. addition differing views substantiality specific centered largely about two questions: (1) established alone, compare Pearlman 460, (2) merely fortifies truth confession, independently establishing charged, answer both affirmative. All corroborated mode bolster itself thereby 'through' Parker State, 228 Ind. 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 442. above standard provide corroboraton introducing apart tending willfully accomplished substantiating directly, figure, together remainder amply establishes income; infer willfulness. Two significant items tend owned excess those First, filed returns 1936 1939, nontaxable 1940 1942, nonassessable return 1943, refundable 1944, 1941. Second, touching economic activities immediately preceding period, disclosed 1941 employed manager service; worked package $40 week; short time hairdresser. agent's testimony, solely petitioner, adopted evidence.4 adequately financial history, worth. find resources amassed buttressed somewhat bought modest home 1943 $9,600, paying less one-third balance installments, bulk family's her name, housewife almost preprosecution sources 17 just method corroborating also entirely different line proof—by conduct tends resort computations. showed coincident service, kept records, opened new making over-all total accounts banks; money amounted $8,000 varied $42,000 $80,000 years; brokerage 1947 1948 respectively, $9,000 $41,000 1949; investments realty $2,000 1946, $14,000 1948, $35,000 expenditures $3,750 Savings Bonds investment $4,768 cars $37,000 annuity payment mink coat 1949. same declared expenses $3,000. expenditures, savings might not, themselves, suffice support indicating lack funds payments come. understating say so little far coupled business producing unrecorded amounts fails charge earnings lines permit jury. circumstances leading up failure facts therein mesh adduced Government, imposed reviewing duty careful scrutiny. strong enough, believe, overcome indicia unreliability, accordingly affirm. 19 Affirmed. discussion civil penalty, apparently meant liability proper. do bear therefore fairly presented. possible too slight result respect. Admissions given special providing grounds inference reliability, State Saltzman, 241 Iowa 1373, 44 N.W.2d 24. They officials questioned, though, basic exempted corroboration. sufficiently important adduces bearing existence, relies sustain conviction, need 930.

Category: 0