Document: 373 U.S. 179 83 S.Ct. 1151 10 L.Ed.2d 278 David NAMET, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 134. Argued March 18, 1963. Decided May 13, John H. Fitzgerald, Chelsea, Mass., for petitioner. Stephen J. Pollak, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was convicted by a jury on two counts violating federal wagering tax law, §§ 4411 and 4412 Internal Revenue Code 1954, 26 U.S.C. 4411, 4412. His conviction affirmed Court Appeals First Circuit, 301 F.2d 314. contends that his should have been reversed because at trial prosecutor permitted to ask witnesses incriminating questions concerning their relationship with petitioner, knowledge would invoke privilege against self-incrimination. We granted certiorari resolve an asserted conflict decisions in other circuits. 371 858, 115, 9 97. 2 theory prosecution's case had operated small gambling ring Massachusetts. method operation, according Government's theory, visit several neighborhood stores regular times each day purpose collecting betting receipts paying off winning bets. One shops he visited variety store owned Irving Annette Kahn. 3 Informations charging violations laws were filed Kahns same day. All three represented lawyer, all pleaded not guilty. On petitioner's trial, changed pleas Because they previously told government investigators collected wagers made personally settled accounts them, subpoenaed appear trial. 4 In opening statement jury, prosecuting attorney stated reason believe 'a husband wife' testify Upon completion statement, Fitzgerald approached bench, following colloquy took place: 5 'Mr. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, it is my understanding United States Attorney going attempt use as witnesses. 6 'Now, keeping mind are defendants, entitled own case— 7 'The COURT: They 8 'MR. I know that, your but still didn't waive any Constitutional privileges behalf. think law no after pleaded. further under investigation Department far income taxes concerned, everything else. 11 Well, haven't seen them take stand yet, if claim Fifth, will rule then.' 12 After brief testimony first witness, called repeated objection record, arguments.1 Mrs. Kahn then testified her name, address, ownership store, acquaintance She refused answer whether she 'some type business relationship' An extended bench ensued. court eventually concluded Kahn's plea guilty charge engaging accepting deprived right refuse about activity. But also ruled did dealings third persons since still, least theoretically, subject prosecution conspiracy, or possibly bribery. new objections arguments during this colloquy. To contrary, appeared acquiesce questioning open once managed work out convenient means advising when assert self-incrimination.2 13 resumed recess. began line designed determine known requirement before date arrest. objected, ground material. Another conference held, which explained show danger conspiracy charge. sustained Fitzgerald's materiality questions. interrogation discontinued. 14 another recess, Government presentation its calling Their established prosecution: surveillance agents one month. observed him route twice day, stopping few minutes cigar stores. During afternoon round, pockets coat became progressively more bulging, inferentially material gathered Petitioner returned home No enter between arrival round departure next morning round. Expert introduced showing activities consistent those principal operation. visits filled, testified, indicated pick-up day's slips, fit pattern 'setting-up' owners pay previous absence apparent contact indicate himself acting banker enterprise, passing money principal. final ingredient certain found search home. This consisted 'slips number pool wagers,' 'daily double horse bet slips,' over $1,000 cash bills denominations. slips identified experts normally held 'bookie' rather than bettor. 15 key issues developed part question places regularly were, fact, establishments. such agents, coudl events present. 16 stand. made. voluntarily question, acquainted being directed court, And, second overruled, accepted store. followed, witness come couple week,' denied came every afternoon. 17 course asked total only four refusal sustained.3 At time object behalf nor request instructions regarding inferences might draw from these refusals answer. Indeed, counsel attempted closing argument utilize contradicted evidence regularity visits. contained references Kahns' answer, arrested charged together 18 court's regard testimony: 19 'Nor inference be drawn testify, unless logical appeal you having direct bearing upon defendant's guilt.' 20 whatever instructions. 21 turning must set aside circumstances described, we emphasize outset what does involve. constitutional kind presented. infringement Fifth Amendment self-incrimination.4 He contend way prejudiced assertion privilege.5 involves, short, evidentiary error. 22 contention reversible error committed permitting incriminate themselves. It said participated criminal activity defendant, based self-incrimination tends imply truthful affirmative. inference, argues, cannot properly used defendant. support argument, relies dicta cases decision v. Maloney, 262 535, Second Circuit said, 'Such (to testify) uniformly permissible basis inferring although logically very persuasive.' Id., 537.6 23 None dealing suggests invariably whenever claims Rather, lower courts looked surrounding case, focusing primarily factors, distinct First, some may concept prosecutorial misconduct, makes conscious flagrant build arising testimonial privilege. seems reasons underlying finding supra. admitted knowing could validly intended do so. nevertheless questioned them. make adverse testify. See Tucker, Cir., 267 212. A rest conclusion given witness' added critical weight form cross-examination, thus unfairly present extent Maloney decision, where noted challenged corroboration dubious interested chief witness. F.2d, 536—537. hand, failed find episodes 'no minor lapses through long trial.' Hiss, 185 822, 832 (C.A.2d Cir.). Amadio, 215 605, 614 (C.A.7th And even objectionable prejudicial, has disregard sufficiently cured error.7 24 appears both theories. stresses fact advance notice intention Amendment, nevertheless. argues crucial pointing entirely circumstantial. 25 need pass correctness relies,8 within basic rationale case. place, record misconduct. true, course, announced questioned. certainly accept face value privilege, matter how frivolous. initially self-incrimination, reasoning justification erase conduct. view supported substantial authority, cf. Reina States, 364 507, 513, 81 260, 264, 249, upheld judge. Although later render conduct immune prosecution, making privileged, there remained independent quite proper call Both possessed nonprivileged information corroborate could, did, knew frequently themselves engaged wagers. put jury. Moreover, bulk interrogation, including involving privileged information, occurred limited somewhat later, developed, time, clearly him. rulings intervening prevented introducing most planned daily gambling. wagers, District Court's prior ruling privileged. so eliciting relevant testimony, 27 lapses, viewed context entire amounted deliberate attempts capital witnesses' particularly reluctant fasten motives when, here, defense many instances actually acquiesced procedure soon rights secured. 28 Nor can invocations significance constituted effect minimized lengthy gave. operations well general association Once facts themselves, visits, natural completely linking Thus one, like source, cumulative already portion testimony. 29 borne nothing presents issue curative devices9 requests ever Far it, impliedly us hold not, sua sponte, affirmative action. see require extravagant protection errors obviously prejudicial disregard.10 30 There remains consideration instruction nowhere mentioned petition Court, our rules us.11 Even instruction, though aspects Thus, concerned right, whether, assuming wrong, plain defect 'affecting rights' Rule 52(b) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure.12 What clear passage affected 31 Affirmed. 32 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting. 33 permit presence conclude Certainly thought help State's case; otherwise, answered. glance note majority people ordinarily reason, inferred admit charge, exception taken, left free infer guilt questions.* thinking, unfair getting convictions condoned treating speculation good bad were. agree defendant either disregarded erroneously influenced prosecutor, warned claimed, examination begun, acknowledged Amendment's sustain allowed proceed examination, heard claim, sustain, refusing True tried, lawyer would, turn situation advantage referring it. place poisonous original objections. acquiescence reverse. noted.' beside while testifies, counsel? her, impress 'But slowly, time. rise chair, taken pleads Amendment? Yes. Now, pending what?' 'Can tell (the petitioner) were?' 'And paid commission bets store?' 'Who 'Did Namet?' follows: '* * doesn't to. sit mute fall Or wishes. him.' Cf. Grunewald 353 391, 415—424, 77 963, 979—984, 931; Konigsberg State Bar, 252, 722, 810. 212, 215; Gernie, 252 664; Romero, 249 371; Cioffi, 242 473; 605; 822; Weinbaum 184 330; Cases, etc., 519. generally 86 A.L.R.2d Ann. 1443. See, e.g., 664 Cir.); 330 (C.A.9th supra, 538. 415—426, 979—985, Stewart 366 1, 941, 84. suggested appropriate preliminary screening outside hearing Finding, do, involves neither misconduct importance, holding failure give elements constitutes brought attention memorandum reply petition. 23, par. 1(c) Supreme provides, 'Only forth fairly comprised therein considered court.' pertinent part: 'No party assign omission therefrom objects thereto retires consider verdict, stating distinctly grounds objection. Opportunity shall jury.' 52 provides: '(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity variance affect disregarded. '(b) Plain defects affecting noticed (petitioner)

Category: 0