Document: 337 U.S. 137 69 S.Ct. 1000 93 L.Ed. 1264 SMITHv.UNITED STATES. No. 292. Argued March 4—7, 1949. Decided May 31, Mr. Walter R. Hart, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Harold D. Cohen, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, George Smith, together with Daisart Sportswear, Inc., and another person was charged by United States in two informations forty-one counts each violations § 301 Second War Powers Act1 Priorities Regulations Nos. 3.2 The first information petitioner his co-defendants intentional misuse priority ratings instances order to purchase certain cotton rayon materials second them unlawful utilization textiles so obtained. same defendants were also indicted court conspiring violate Emergency Price Control Act 19423 regulations thereunder selling finished piece goods above established maximum price keeping false records their transactions. indictment consolidated trial District Court Southern New York; after before a jury found guilty on thirty-five informations. On appeal Appeals Circuit affirmed conviction as twentythree informations, but reversed twelve v. 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 856. During 1944 1945 petitioner, sole owner officer Inc. (hereinafter called Daisart), corporation engaged fabrication, purchase, sale textile goods. Its actual operation contractor working others. As part its business furnish Metals Disintegrating Corporation cloth bags filtering packing metal powders manufactured under contracts Army Navy. Production Board had granted high pr ference secure necessary fulfill government contracts. Because inability provide particular used make powder bags, which greyish white duck color, very similar canvas tents, gave blanket preference apply or extend4 all needed manufacture bags. 3 There is evidence would justify finding following facts. Through use these top priorities obtained company, orders he certified that be into Over half million square yards material thus invoiced paid Daisart. Disintegrating, however, purchased from only 11,987 consisting 48,920 material. Moreover means consisted fabrics wide variety colors finishes. They resold Daisart, often still original packing, manufacturers civilian clothing at prices far excess law. In transactions conspiracy other fictitious names, descriptions prices, falsified invoices, money arrived circuitous devious routes bank accounts either 4 Such amply sufficient sustain petitioner's indictment, insists immune prosecution acts stands convicted. He bases claim immunity 202 1942, amended, 56 Stat. 23, 58 632, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 922, reads follows: 5 '(a) Administrator authorized such studies investigations, conduct hearings, obtain deems proper assist him prescribing any regulation this Act, administration enforcement regulations, orders, schedules thereunder. 6 '(c) For purpose obtaining subsection (a), may subpena require appear testify produce documents, both, designated place. 7 '(g) No shall excused complying requirements section because privilege against self-incrimination, provisions Compulsory Testimony February 11, 1893 (U.S.C., 1934 edition, title 49, sec. 46), respect individual who specifically claims privilege.' 8 1893, 27 443, 49 U.S.C. 46, U.S.C.A. provides: 9 'That no attending testifying producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, documents Interstate Commerce Commission, obedience subpoena commission, * ground reason testimony evidence, documentary otherwise, required him, tend criminate subject penalty forfeiture. But prosecuted subjected forfeiture account transaction, matter thing, concerning testify, otherwise said subpoena, Provided, That exempt punishment perjury committed testifying.' 10 Petitioner's plea arose out an examiner Office Administration response subpoenas issued office. August, 1945, investigators began inquiry Two summoning individually official Administration. directed 'pertaining sale, manufacture, fabrication and/or finishing goods, materials, January 1, up present time.' April 30, 1946, pursuant subpoenas, appeared counsel O.P.A. After ruling, unchallenged respondent, appearance compulsion valid sworn witness advised erroneously could not compelled self-incriminating statements further constitutional guarantees. This obvious reference Fifth Amendment's protection self-incrimination recognized quoted above. 11 few questions preliminary nature, stated: 'I want anything I say.' Thereafter, answer examiner, explained been destroyed, lost, misplaced. testified until it went October, allied products. carrying business, products made furnished organization, so-called manufacturer, whom contracted product. Smith then various operations sold surplus textiles; Company, manufacturing acquire fabrics. denied bought reselling stated surplusage operations. examples company's operations, five companies named many others whose names slipped mind, ammunition subcontractor prime contract Government. reply question how sold, answered: 'Since surplus, billed me plus freight haulage less discount allowed me.' 12 Petitioner A. Steinman & Co., L. Lazarus Southeastern Cottons three firms fabrics, received invoices suppliers purchases, purchases check times. disclosed Fidelity Union Trust Company Newark, N.J., where maintained account, name accountant social security reflect total overall including materials. According usually manufacturer contracting, merely supplied labor tr mming. did bill material, simply shipped turn garments. It tacitly understood if save do pleased waste making approximated amount actually knew fact never waste. 13 foregoing there occurred colloquy between examiner: 14 'Question (by examiner): So contracting activities bag without bill? 15 'Answer petitioner): not. being foreign concern unable they asked them. aware cannot priorities. Those forthcoming sum. stipulated told maintain constant stock call. mean Sportswear call for. Their came sometimes dated set size specified form. day day. about purchasing work. When notify ask immediately hand am overstocked, time dispose it. 16 'Question: voluntary statement. You statement? 17 'Answer: 18 assume you tell us verification? state although government, position item? 19 Right. 20 'Question. And situation, so? 21 amount. 22 priority, thereafter acquired some Metals, disposed correct? 23 Yes. 24 those disposals formed good sales Daisart? 25 did.' 26 during sought introduce transcript official, moved dismissal upon 1942 questioned. asserted hearing covered essentially matters basis indictment. judge reserved decision motion corporation. Subsequently ruled admissible defendant corporation, instructed. overruled charges 'the does prove feature commission crime, nor will when combined proof circumstances supply.' thought test. Conviction followed 35 conspiracy. sentenced pay $10,000 count, $710,000 fines imprisonment way have years serve. 'not waived earlier disclosure Steinam sellers based companies.' page 861. These reversal reduced imposed $240,000, sentence years' imprisonment. rest sentences held clear statement facts therein essential convictions. pages 860, 862. One dissented importance problem federal criminal justice, we brought case here certiorari. 335 882, 233. 28 First. evolution congressional policy dealing return has adequately discussed recently Monia, 1943, 317 424, 63 409, 87 376, Shapiro States, 1948, 68 1375, 92 1787. Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 1110, absolute offenses must given self-incrimination. To meet requirement Congress amended 383, 12, protected subsequent proceeding should 'prosecuted *.' 141, 1002, supra. remission responsibility met 'absolute' test provision Brown Walker, 161 591, 644, 40 819. If testified, fairly say himself. might suffer disgrace humiliation unfortunate results are outside protection. Id., 598, 647. Cf. 630—631, 652, 653. compulsory statute 1906 extend natural oath subpoena. 34 798, 48. Monia case, supra, decided 1943 amended. conclusion reached interpretation statute, 430, 412, despite contrary rule requiring Amendment. See Vajtauer Commissioner, 273 103, 113, 47 302, 306, 71 560. Heike 227 131, 33 226, 57 450, Ann.Cas.1914C, 128. 29 light decisions adjusting witness' duty enabled, through model, legislate force lips believed administer acts.5 By date decision, had, foresightedly, added standard clause, drawn privilege.6 addition put parity supplemented case. 30 examination Act.7 subpoenaed oath. At beginning examination, raised validity assure himself voluntarily present. promptly declared: examiner's queries Daisart's activities, 143 145, 1003 1004, organization priorities, customers, banking connections method computing clearly more than suggestions imagined 599, 647, Some, least, disclosures, procure fixing sales, bore directly thereby well charge Act. disassociated 128, language pertinent 'concerning which' testified.8 links chain evidence. Government contest concerns charges. 31 Second. Government, contends form above, 144, 1004.9 Privilege can waiver statutory disappears.10 Since penalties makes available witness. Nor see why withdrawn. Although claimed, claimed guaranteed Constitution. Thereafter compel desired testimony. Waiver rights, lightly inferred.11 A properly consequent vague uncertain 32 plain relied privilege. notice testify. decide whether suspected operation.12 Just opened quoted, elicited work manufacturer. Then practice ammunition-bag contract. answer, think, responsive. question: 'This statement?' 'No ' Whether 'No' applied known. view specific privilege, seems unlikely waive prosecution, details source lay base correctness transcription. Without effort clarify 'No', ahead restate substance long 1004 intimation answers considered voluntary.13 We think equivocal previous definite general excluded entire just discussed, contained proving crime supply, refused acquittal. Furthermore, argues statement, unquestioned immunity, detailed inclusive. restating testimony, necessity manufacturing, suppliers, manner receipts, disbursements give claimed. Third. Finally presses argument wholly self-exonerating therefore contention since 202(g) exchange incriminating, 1787; Wigmore, Evidence, 2282. 36 sell fixed relating within allowable limits.14 plan payments checks persons conspirators cashed. 37 glance 143, demonstrate beyond exculpatory price. acquisition payment times check. named. point relates waivers, printed taken consideration. Certainly disclosures leads uncovered transactions, things substantially connected parts indicted—for example, invoice supplier bank. conspiracy, ample prosecution. gives 'of Consequently, need charge, grant immunity. 38 Reversed. 177, 827, 60 868, 633. C.F.R., Cum.Supp. 944.1—944.21; 944.23. et seq., 767, 59 664, 901 seq. footnote Appeals, 856, 859 states: 'These terms Bradford, 160 729, certiorari 331 829, 67 1351 (91 1844). rating recipient commodities extends (uses) subsuppliers.' 6, 1378, 142, 227, 429, 411, cf. 442, 417, 376. accused grand investigation Sherman earn act 25, 1903, 854, 904, fraud revenue secret introduction springs scales cause indicate weight. table annual meltings sugar monopoly Heike. said: 'The year bearing frauds, confined fraudulently weighed, number pounds up. mere embraced falsely weighed frauds. consideration shows incriminate neither led discovery crime.' 228, 50, 376; 819; Weisman, 111 260; Molasky, 118 134. Government's suggested, too, responsive volunteer appearing compulsion. Further, relies character included previously 'Even repeated initial qualify limit proceeds, new issues waived.' Raffel 271 494, 496, 46 566, 567, 70 1054, cases cited; 560; 427, 410, Johnson 318 189, 549, 552, 704. Hodges Easton, 106 408, 307, 310, 169; Ohio Bell Tel. Co. Public Utilities Comm'n, 292, 724, 731, 81 1093; Aetna Ins. Kennedy, 389, 394, 809, 812, 1177; Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 1019, 1023, 82 1461. Compare St. Pierre, 128 979, 980: 'Nor appellant several points crime; contradiction, especially nervous excitable overcome entitled referred Can items sold? me. words, cost discounts, ash Inc.? Correct.'

Category: 0