Document: 355 U.S. 339 78 S.Ct. 311 2 L.Ed.2d 321 Howard LAWN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. William GIGLIO and Frank Livorsi, Petitioners, v. UNITED Nos. 9, 10. Argued Oct. 14, 15, 1957. Decided Jan. 13, 1958. Rehearing Denied March 3, See 967, 529. [Syllabus from pages 339-341 intentionally omitted] Mr. Milton Pollack, New York City, for petitioner Lawn. Joseph Leary Delaney, petitioners Giglio Livorsi. Roger D. Fisher, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion Court. 1 On July 23, 1953, a 10-count indictment was returned in United States District Court Southern charging others with evading, conspiring to evade, assessment payment large amount federal income taxes year 1946 violation internal revenue laws (§§ 145(b) 3793(b) Internal Revenue Code 1939)1 general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C.A. 371). After protracted trial before jury were found guilty as charged.2 appeal Appeals that there substantial evidence petitioners, operating through media several partnerships corporations,3 conspired by variety means did both assessment4 payment5 more than $800,000 individual corporate 19466 upon derived World War II black market sugar who owned equal interests enterprises which chief executive, principals conspiracy, but Roth, an accountant, Lawn, lawyer,7 provided accounting legal services required carry out conspiracy. It amply sustained verdicts no prejudicial error committed at trial, it affirmed judgments conviction. Giglio, Cir., 232 F.2d 589. Upon petition Lawn No. Livorsi 10, we granted certiorari. 352 865, 77 91, 74. Because challenged convictions resulted common represented same counsel, because questions presented each case are similar, two cases will be decided one opinion. Petitioners ask this reverse their four main grounds. First, they contend, only tangentially, deprived due process Fifth Amendment refusal conduct full-dress hearing determine whether testimony or documents obtained them prior grand investigation, leads clues furnished thereby, considered present indictment. Second, contends receipt photostatic copy canceled check its corresponding stub, him Amendment. Third, contend denied opportunity examine cross-examine witnesses investigation used prosecution And fourth, does not support convictions. 3 Understanding petitioners' first second contentions, lesser extent third contention, requires review underlying facts based. agents began 1948 tax liabilities, on September 1950, three criminal informations filed laws. Those brought Government had completed later concluded 'much serious crimes (were) involved.' In early 1952, Roth served subpoenas duces tecum commanding appear testify produce certain partnership records enterprises. They appeared testified, warned constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. produced checks made Tavern Fruit Juice Co. payable his order checkbook stub check. instruments marked 'G.J. Ex. (1, 2, 4, respectively) 7/15/52 L.F.G.' photostated Attorney quantity records, including some stated 'practically all these companies corporations turned over books Department date 1949.' October 20, six indictments offenses similar those charged moved dismiss ground been procured, part least, rights. The held require personal jury, while evasions pending them, without warning self-incrimination, violated therefore dismissed directed 'to return, respective defendants, response subpoenas.' 115 F.Supp. 674, 678. appealed untimely 19, 1953. 208 467.8 While caused new liabilities another whom appear, sealed. Government's dismissing 1952 (United supra) sealed opened, soon afterward (1) indictment, connection (2) have given procuring (3) inspect he minutes and, if motion denied, (4) suppress use procured proceeding therefrom. These motions submitted court affidavits.9 considering extensive arguments affidavits left room inference illegally materials securing claim 'solidity' justify holding such hearing, do so 'on basis showing defendants would indeed subordinating 'the need rigorous administration justice undue solicitude potential * disobedience law law's officers.' (Nardone States, 308 338, 342, 60 266, 268, 84 L.Ed. 307.)' 16 F.R.D. 270. declined hold requested also suppress,10 said: 'Of course, during course reason believe material is being may can object time incumbent judge rule objections.' supra, page 271. 4 Pursuant inspection compliance subpoena, abandoned examined Government, relating businesses Jersey receiver. At beginning renewed above-mentioned again denied. transcript jury. I. 5 As stated, enable attempt proceeding, therefrom, 1953 We merit contention. Court's though final, could any way direct derivative opposition disclosed, Appeals, findings agree, reason, beyond suspicion, make clear laid foundation preliminary (at would, effect, take depositions witnesses) substance suspicion 6 Moreover, has times legally constituted nonbiased like information drawn prosecutor, valid face, enough call charge merits satisfies requirements Holt 218 245, 31 54 1021, decide should quashed incompetent admission accused, aside 'there very little accused.' Id., 247, 4. This refused quashed, stating: 'The abuses practice enhanced upset ground.' 248, Costello 350 359, 76 406, 408, 100 755, squarely faced question, saying: 7 'If open challenge inadequate resulting delay great indeed. result defendant always insist kind competency adequacy An unbiased merits. nothing more.' 363, 409. 8 urged 'establish permitting supported adequate competent evidence,' id., 364, 409, so, 9 'It run counter whole history institution, laymen inquiries unfettered technical rules. Neither nor concept fair change. merits, entitled strict observance rules designed bring about verdict. Defendants entitled, however, interminable add assurance trial.' Ibid. 10 unnecessary say here dealing illegal right decline give incriminating proceedings obtained. deal question circumstances case, satisfy unsupported suspicions not. II. 11 come now Lawn's contention earlier pursuant $15,000, endorsed him, faces L.F.G.,' respectively, photostats offered evidence—it appears inadvertently Exhibits 61—A 61—B. However, exhibits offered, Exhibit 58—A, statement assets, income, profit loss supporting schedules Company prepared after Tavern's fiscal ended 31, 1946, 7, return 1947, received objection. former contained item 'legal expenses $16,600,' latter recited fees $1,600.' explanation, testified 'sometime operation $15,000 Lawn,' arisen how enter books. discussing matter expense. Months asked carried told advised handling incorrect, loan expense Tavern. Thereupon, consulting altered removing Giglio. remember just when alteration made, except preparation 58—A filing 7. 12 important note stage thus corroborated admitted objection, Tavern, issue existed innocent incriminatory guise fee. then 61—B, stub. Petitioners' able experienced counsel (now deceased) asked, granted, permission witness preparatory possible objection exhibits. He questioned length handwriting stub,11 asking witness: 'Q. under 640 (the number stub), corresponds itself, parenthetical statements, 'Bill G'? A. Yes, sir. Q. Indicating Giglio's account? sir.' 'No objection,' received. examination (showing face jury) show fee—his drive point home stand, not—and affirmative 'no objection' show, believe, conscious intentional waiver objections evidence. 13 argues denial, suppress, unequivocal affidavit stating subpoena future preserved trial. quite true generally overruling pretrial particular preserves renders Cogen 278 221, 223, 49 118, 119, 73 275; Gouled 255 298, 312, 313, 41 261, 65 647; Waldron 95 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 69—70, 219 37, 41; compare Keen Overseas Tankship Corp., 194 515. But exceptions, applied hard-and-fast formula every regardless special circumstances. 224, 119; 266. remembered passing said, respecting Attorney, 'at proceedings, oath sufficient' 271), expressly suppression admonished 'have record shows fully aware 61—B evidence, when, using purposes, affirmatively said them. 14 that, attention called fact copies other sources commenced. what accorded request May 12, says contains voluntarily strike portions brief thereto. That must look certified deciding presented. McClellan Carland, 217 30 501, 762. 15 record, above discussed, fee, wisely (as, impartial lawyer agree) exhibits, consciously waived III. argue cannot doubted Nardone 341, 267, 307, otherwise contend. Court, ruling subject inquiry F.R.D., wholly factual, thorough study discloses right. sustain cross-examination attempting attacking procedural validity indictment.12 specifically claimed Near close far detect, tainted occasions, submit memorandum believed No ever furnished. 17 instances source cross-examining sought concerning question. ground, time, purpose interrogation 'go into obtain indictment,' rather crossexamination Treasury Agent Present, whether, audits, failed ask; answer counsel's announced wainted was, rather, tained 'used indictment.'13 examining own witness, Assistant Leone, whatever contention.14 IV. insufficient Count count, tending formerly Chief Criminal Division Attorney's Office Jersey, employed 'he terrific entry highest government offices,' 'was organization' prevent trouble.' frequently private office, adjoined own. office Eatsum purchase corn blackmarket prices refined syrup sold overceiling prices, Lubben matters. 'had connections' company prominent political figure midwest procure advantageously, took 1945, where present, 'that profits (Tavern's) candy business primarily (Eatsum's) becoming terrific, wasn't interested paying lot something done, done quick'; 'it form companies' siphon off 'phony invoices'; 'be dissolved came pay tax.' Soon instrumental creation bearing combination word 'American.' officer nominal stockholder corporations, 25% stock payments addition salary. near delinquent returns meeting agreed transfer 'not house,' arrangement 'would save home.' made. There participation aboverecited legitimate inferences might therefrom clearly sufficient verdict count. 19 contests sufficiency Counts since sentence counts concurrently us consider contentions. Sinclair 279 263, 299, 273, 692; Hirabayashi 320 81, 63 1375, 87 1774; Pinkerton 328 640, 66 1180, 90 1489.15 20 Petitioner him. 6, evade fraudulent disclosed $101,123.88. introduced $228,288.58, understated $40,000. During arose proper 'distributive shares' sale share' pertnership (on 8, 1946) 1946. complication court, effort simplify matter, gave supplemental which, among things, '(W)hen you get reported returns, I distributive share difficulty, don't *.' (Emphasis supplied.) effect eliminate $101,123.88 sworn credit offset understatement sources, thus, established deficiency reporting income. detain long. While, conviction stand absence proof deficiency, court's create withdrew jury's consideration $127,164.70 return. meaning misunderstood 21 American Brands Corporation calendar converting diverting assets. disagree. half capital corporation conferred stock, operations familiar affaifs; withheld salary; January 1, June 16, $122,000, salary, liability $100,000, shown $300 paid. 9. 22 Livorsi's viewed light foregoing facts, find entirely merit. 23 count runs affirmed, contentions 8. supra; supra.16 24 Several points raised carefully judgment affirmed. 25 Affirmed. 26 HARLAN, FRANKFURTER BRENNAN join, concurring dissenting part. 27 agree Part evidencing me concur affirmance think different required. 28 recognize excludable 'tainted' government-made decision, Nevertheless sustains admissibility 'consciously intentionally' view share, seems action falls short strictest measure accountability repeated representations defense 29 justifies finding reasoning remark reflected deliberate choice between having in, exclusion from, case. unconvincing. outset, noted assumes realized original copies. That, my opinion, hazardous assumption. exhibit bore tell-tale markings, assuming, do, inadvertence, equally red escaped notice prosecutor well judge, constantly alert sensitive throughout possibility filtering see attributing greater awareness score possessed judge. Further, apparent wanted corroborating explanation than, partnership.1 read episode, reasonable suppose voir dire introduced, ending remark, play good sometimes uses affect appearance unconcern towards damaging knows keep interest even mention theory summation; tends tactics leave alone. hand, hardly standpoint actual endorsement value Government. eyes apt instrument crime implicating played up telling summation. short, episode unreal light. least much doubt actually intended. Where, here, whose plea good-faith benefit doubt, particularly contrary deem inconsistent high standards past decisions insisted maintained trials. McNabb 318 332, 340—341, 608, 612, 613, 819. dignity permit person testimony.' Mesarosh 5, 1. 32 error, further additional proffered indicates 'innocent' hands authorities trial.2 Had existence known arising deemd harmless, substituted If, event unaware possession copies, reversal still grounds position substitute objected excluded 33 Although, properly holds, pass accuracy determining issues us, proffer taken account nature enter. 2106, 2106; cf. Shotwell Manufacturing Co., 233, 245. petitioner, making specific disputed appeal, occasion introduce thereby avoid error. permitted preclude complained harmless. vacate remand within reach If finds, instructed let finds otherwise, grant (1952 ed.) §§ 3793(b), 145(b), 3793(b). five named Louis J. defendants. Since contest pleaded principal summarized. remaining essence follows: willfully attempted concealing Corporation, commit substantive report it. sentenced day sentences concurrently. total years. years consecutively, 6. organizations were: Company, Livorsi; Food Products Ltd., 50% until enterprise thereof series 'American' created drain invoices became due. evasion used: allocation various individuals conspiracy; overstatement expenses; failure disclose accomplished delaying disclosure months late; failing withhold salaries; concealment assets misappropriation, conversion diversion Of total, $573,683.73 owing long-overdue filed, $16,735.95 full-time employees beief argued timely move period limitations late reciting secured estimony rights; one, agent implied computations based stored kept. conducted investigations leading Attorneys responsible essence, conference called, assistant investigations; necessary way, however remote, doubts resolved favor exclusion; none obtaining indictment; long microfilm enlargements bank checks, statements pertaining transactions, banks, persons, receiver, agencies, businesses. unequivocally reasons: sufficient. granting defendants' necessitate Such entail useless material, collected 1948, 270, entries identification? book. To best recollection, Cerone's. How spell Cerone? C-e-r-o-n-e. your employees, Roth? No, bookkeeper Juice. Would regard check, payee check? amount? am about. handwriting, looks handwriting. maker (for) $15,000? signature. they? identification, looked printing writing Cerone, not? Though times, colloquies equivocal, following typical him: Counsel: 'I really adjudicated illegality calling people Judge Palmieri. Now, obviously be, well, disruptive never doing didn't seem had. Have plain? Court: have, want sure. go Council: 'That it, yes, exactly. 'And really, happened 'That's that. 'Rather guilt innocence say. 'My it.' although dismissal elicits going Goddard improper. wishes field outside presence Counsel plain here.' court: 'Now, broad includes can't part, too broad.' replied: 'Well, half-way. *' 'All right, rule.' obvious constitutes fact, subpoenaed knew prosecutions instituted 'bad faith.' attorney closing summation saying, pertinent 'We vouch (Roth Lubben) truth,' insinuate knowledge anything Cf. Henderson 19; Holt, 108 365, 370; Tuckerman 291 F. 958, 969. persecution bad faith instance group agent, 'solely' perjurers, opening instructed, this.' comments invited reply attacks. Gridley 44 716, 739; Battiato, 204 717. addition, sole judges credibility witnesses, accomplice 'You got careful scrutinizing skin lied hurt somebody else motive lying else.' Lubben, continued: tell accomplice, scrutinize carefully.' erred refusing motion, days production Lubben's 'before defendants,' written Appeals. Only exceptional below. Duignan 274 195, 200, 47 566, 568, 71 996; Husty 282 694, 701, 702, 51 240, 241, 242, 75 629. here. Brotherhood Carpenters 330 395, 412, 67 775, 784, 91 973. mentioned certiorari Our Rule 23(1)(c), provides, part: 'Only set forth fairly comprised therein court.' Irvine California, 347 128, 129, 74 381, 98 561. difficult corroborative attributes recording expense' accountant consulted dispute subsequent reflect transaction involving personally insistence 'payment' asserts reference 1952.

Category: 0