Document: 355 U.S. 233 78 S.Ct. 245 2 L.Ed.2d 234 UNITED STATES of America, Petitioners,v.The SHOTWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Byron A. Cain, and Harold E. Sullivan. No. 1. Argued Oct. 17, 1957. Decided Dec. 16, [Syllabus from pages 233-234 intentionally omitted] Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case presents an unusual question involving integrity a criminal trial in federal courts. The Solicitor General has filed motion this Court to remand District further proceedings. is based on proffer evidence alleged have come into possession Government after United States had petitioned certiorari review decision Appeals setting aside conviction respondents. It claimed that such shows was upon perjurious record attributable fraud 3 A clear appreciation both proceedings lower courts peculiar circumstances which Government's arises essential understanding why we believe must be granted. 4 In 1953 respondents Frank J. Huebner, jury Northern Illinois, were convicted willfully attempting evade 1945 1946 corporate income taxes Shotwell Manufacturing Company.1 Prior they moved dismissal indictment ground their voluntary timely disclosure these tax derelictions taxing authorities entitled them immunity prosecution under Treasury's former 'voluntary policy.'2 denied by pretrial hearing. Respondents Huebner then moved, no same ground, suppression obtained as result disclosure. After hearing, also motion, later filing it found not made good faith.3 5 On appeal, affirmed but reversed set convictions, remanded new trial. 225 F.2d 394.4 respondents' bona fide, ruled timely, issue reached.5 us cross-petitioned issue.6 Thereafter, its remand, which, amended supplemented, joined answers.7 Considering matters presented raised important affecting proper administration justice courts, granted petition certiorari, 'limited issues supplement thereto answer remand.'8 352 997, 77 552, 544. We cross-petition certiorari. 998, 6 For significance newly discovered evidence9 proffered some knowledge required position taken defendants issue. substance Leon Busby, Shotwell's accountant, who testified at hearing suppress He stated Company each years received substantial cash payments black-market candy sales above O.P.A. ceiling prices;10 receipts recorded books reported returns; he first learned facts course conversations with H. Stanley Graflund, comptroller, during trip took New York early January 1948; immediately his return Chicago discussed matter Cain Sullivan; recommended disclosing omissions authorities; that, direction respondents, revealed entire affair Ernest Sauber, Deputy Collector series conferences beginning latter part 1948, one or more accompanied Cain. thereafter, acting Sauber's instructions assurances only civil liability involved, staff, assistance conducted exhaustive investigation over period several months reconstruct figures transactions. said furnished August 1948 revenue agent scrutiny. 7 Sauber gave similar testimony, except fixed Busby's visit him about middle March 1948. Cain's explanation failure report returns believed taxable since used purchase supplies11 therefore rise profit.12 8 support affidavits executed These paint sharply different picture affair; indeed, flatly contradict tale unfolded behalf More specifically: (1) Graflund swears time transactions Busby home late June indication previously known transactions;13 (2) swear prior meeting held July ever advised led been disclosed Treasury; (3) told would made, understand 'agreed' date 'would 15, 1948';14 (4) work done anyone assemble records data purpose making authorities, offsetting supplies fact concocted 'out thin air' meeting; (5) $10,000 needed 'to fix difficulty in.'15 says affidavit asked testify 'because I lie stand.' 9 obvious casts darkest shadow truthfulness testimony given If true, indicates what sought represent Court, Appeals, disclosure, manner faith, instead step conspiracy 'fix' difficulties, possibly corruption government officials,16 certainly entailing attempt perpetrate Were undertake suspect this, might very well lending ourselves consummation may already unwitting victim. imperative full exploration where truth lies before allowed proceed further. judicial process demands less. 10 path our clearly marked Court's actions pronouncements two recent cases, Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 115, 76 663, 100 L.Ed. 1003, Mesarosh States, 1, refused consider questions face challenge evidence. Board directions resolve charges taint, make fresh determination merits, if taint found.17 believing demonstrated key witness wholly discredited, drastic action reversing convictions petitioners remanding basic reason cases manifest opinions. Party, supra, 124—125, page 668, said: 11 'The untainted most cherished aspects institutions. Its observance proudest boasts. charged supervisory functions relation See McNabb 318 332, 63 608, 87 819. Therefore, fastidious regard honor requires certain doing so irrational perverse claims disregard can asserted. * cannot pass containing challenged testimony. find necessary dispose grounds do, order avoid constitutional adjudication because fair it.' 12 Mesarosh, 14, 8, 13 'This case, jurisdiction (Citing McNabb, footnote.) any duty perform regard, see waters are polluted. Pollution having place here, condition should remedied earliest opportunity.' 14 convincing showing bring principles play. think here. contained prospective witnesses cuts heart adduced show fide Treasury, sole involved hearings outcome turned. plain either untrue themselves product fraud. determine. One thing clear. until resolved. 15 enured benefit defendants. instance below advantage Government.18 distinction makes difference. Because guilty jury, concede, must, involves double jeopardy. Ball, 163 662, 672, 16 1192, 1195, 41 300. Their objection 'unfair' allow stage 'bolster' relating likewise unacceptable. undeniable, course, appellate reversal limited trial, free strengthen way introduction opportunity appear Appeals' verdict corrupt own will reciprocal sustain validity asserted disclosures. lose sight does relate submitted below, rather preliminayr admissibility evidence.19 Hence, grant permit returned case. That stand fall sufficiency introduced 17 circumstances, acceptance tantamount sanctioning rule prohibit operate disadvantage defendants, nevertheless require advantage. subscribe quixotic result. one-way street. 18 contend originally addressed now send back Court.20 contention essentially discretion, unavailing. litigation protracted. abundantly satisfied fully aired, forum intimate familiarity facilities sifting controverted facts. state affairs unnecessary wasteful remit Appeals. Cf. 13, 7. 19 conclude word nature additional sides confined findings appropriate light existing (see Carroll 267 132, 162, 45 280, 288, 69 543), including timeliness disclosures.21 decides, basis findings, adhere original suppress, enter final judgments supplemented thereby preserving all parties right seek review, reviewed errors court did reach previous appeal. If, other hand, concludes granted, become accord 20 accordance views forth opinion, following disposition case: February 25, 1957, limitations vacated without restriction; judgment vacated; consistent opinion. 21 ordered. 22 Judgment 23 government's restriction, vacated, 24 Dissenting BLACK, whom CHIEF JUSTICE DOUGLAS concur, announced DOUGLAS. 25 By introduce save thrown out takes unprecedented far-reaching unfortunate ramifications yet foreseen. deny thus regular go pursuant At could has, otherwise, perjury 26 defendants' incriminating disclosures secured promises various officials convict privilege against self-incrimination Fifth Amendment. Now sends hear respect whether faith vague conditions attached offers immunity.1 majority asserts ruling merits Amendment seems me vain act supplemental unless assumes neither nor bars use admissions induced pure motives. going concern all, least give consideration legal problems requests 27 here important, unsettled susceptible offhand resolution, particularly actually turned hope securing prosecution. Bram 168 532, 542—543, 183, 187, 42 568, referred approval 28 "* confession, admissible, voluntary: is, extracted sort threats violence, direct implied promises, however slight, exertion improper influence. confession never prisoner influenced threat promise; law measure force influence used, decide effect mind prisoner, excludes declaration degree exerted." (Emphasis supplied.) 29 statement appears generally assumed defendant confessions immunity. See, e.g., Hardy 186 224, 229, 889, 891, 46 1137; Ziang Sung Wan 266 3, 131; Smith 348 147, 150, 75 194, 196, 99 192. And far tell considered lack deprives Amendment's protection when promise immunity, just extent true. do mean view problem now, register protest disposes 30 disregarded another significant crucial consideration—the role passing Wilson 162 U.S 613, 624, 895, 900, 40 1090, laid down questioned: 31 'When there conflict voluntary, decides left reject if, whole evidence, defendant.' Just recently 151, 192, voluntariness properly taxpayer strength officers. Kent People Porto Rico, 207 113, 118—119, 55, 57—58, 52 127. 32 considerable difference mandatory participate determining jury's participation discretion judge.2 E.g., compare Leviton, Cir., 193 848, 852, 343 946, 72 860, 96 1350, Lewis 74 173, 178—179. Columbia Circuit settled judge submit independent determination. McAffee 70 App.D.C. 142, 105 21. number methods allocating burden between followed, trend determine finds voluntary. As relied so-called 'humane' rule. myself favor rule, beneficial where, turns large credibility witnesses. 33 established subsequent apply Under judge, minimum, option submitting jury. But majority's precludes possibility partial orders. attempts infirmity saying, 'the preliminary evidence.' continues, 'Respondents urge suggest disputed jury.' answers obviously inadequate. concerned happened urged how handled future. ordered barred demanding request 34 gives lost technically infringe jeopardy violate spirit. Green 184, 221; Kepner 195 100, 128—129, 797, 804, 49 114. even worse respects. Only stands while fight keep have. Not single subjected piecemeal prosecution.3 To my idea retain otherwise reverse. 35 Both concede extraordinary justified exceptional called action. agree. essence proposes impeach No recanted false. partially reopen rational denying persuasively appeal? emphasizes anomalous 36 proceeds assumption contain materially false better, although concededly unique, need resort undesirable alternative. simply alone There offer secure seriously contended introducing While true suppressed, it, construed binding available. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Wharton, 378; City Sedalia ex rel. Ferguson Shell Petroleum Corp., 81 193. be—and not—this vacate de novo U.S.C. § 2106, U.S.C.A. 2106. evasion committed prosecuted separate crime. 37 dangerous precedent launched needlessly stream law. Internal Revenue Code 1939, 145(b), 53 Stat. 63, 145(b). manufactured marshmallows. President, Sullivan, Executive Vice President Counsel, President. longer respondent notes 7, infra. policy, Treasury Department 1945, refer intentional taxpayers clean breast things initiated Service. policy informal announcements officials, formalized statute regulation. abandoned 1952. propriety procedure us. contentions conviction. specifically, effective violated rights Self-Incrimination Clause defective, discuss present posture correctness rulings deferred cross-petitions representations letters December 6, 1955, 1956, culminated remand. 980, 1045, 1495. filed, conditional being withdrew limitation, entirety. consented motion. point limitation writ amounted denial regarded invoke possess. shall vacating granting, nunc pro tunc, restriction. removes jurisdiction, 2106; prejudices party opposition justify questioning accuracy General's representation 'newly discovered.' puts figure $380,000; $160,000. Except amount $6,000 returns. Although deductability expenditures, kind expenditure deductible. Sullenger Commissioner, T.C. 1076. According Grafluend's affidavit, spurred Sam Krane, Special Agent Service, visited office 21, states Krane requested information David G. Lubben, receiving sums money books; available 'criticized' so; conferred within few days Krane's visit. states: 'On November 1952, defendant's contacted March, testify, thought supposed me, 'Ssshhh! nobody knows anything this. Keep quiet." represents Joseph M. Lima 30, instructed Group Supervisor, Ralph Johnson, immediate audit return; thereafter Johnson (as offsets) over-ceiling purchases totaling than $300,000 unsubstantiated whose allowance contrary Service policy; prepared deficiency $20,000, destroyed Johnson's September Intelligence Unit inquiries connection affidavit: 'Cain sometime July, settle Shortly $20,000.00 'In October, division hell broken loose; people heck destroying papers up billing taxes.' note supra. Section 14(a) Act expressly authorizes appeals taking 64 987, pp. 1001—1002, 50 793(a). Our authority fashion broad provisions grants power, incident 'vacate judgment' brought 'before (us) review' 'require circumstances.' record. 327 106, 111, 112, 66 464, 466, 90 562. Rather sustained suppress. suggested dealt directed fruits thereof, 'suppression' aspect vacated. sound because, net justified, procured irrelevant assuming truth, formal communicated Treasury. deal event relevant made. Moreover, argument (a) finding issue, (b) policy' formulated sufficient precision enable mechanically. motivating behind individual's deciding talk evasion. 'gets religion' anything, prosecuted.' Press Release, May 1947. subject annotated great detail 170 A.L.R. 567. Also 85 870. Neither Bd., serves upheld came forward principal Here asks base salvage crucial. administrative agency proceeding hardly equated operated protect aid Government. traditional importance.

Category: 0