Document: 415 U.S. 239 94 S.Ct. 1179 39 L.Ed.2d 297 UNITED STATESv.Norbert Nisan KAHAN. No. 73—428. Decided Feb. 25, 1974. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent, a former Immigration inspector, was convicted by jury in the District Court of numerous counts under multiple-count indictment; conviction covered 20 improperly receiving gratuities for official acts, violation 18 U.S.C. § 201(g), and one perjury before grand jury, s 1623, arising out scheme to defraud nonresident aliens Naturalization Service. The Appeals reversed respondent's remanded case retrial. 479 F.2d 290 (CA2 1973). Respondent's motion proceed forma pauperis this Court, petition writ certiorari, are granted. judgment is reversed, reinstatement conviction. 2 At arraignment, counsel appointed Criminal Justice Act 1964, 3006A(b), represent him after he requested appointment stated that without funds. In response direct question as whether had funds employ an attorney, failed disclose access control four savings accounts which deposited approximately $27,000 during 1970 1971,1 from made frequent withdrawals immediately subsequent arraignment. were apparently established respondent so-called 'Totten trusts' his children intended donees; New York law these trusts revocable at will. re Totten, 179 N.Y. 112, 71 N.E. 748 (1904). deposits undisclosed aggregated more than $25,000 reported total legitimate income on tax returns 1971, evidence admitted trial supporting inference received charged. As part Government's chief statements court lack funds.2 false exculpatory evincing consciousness bank incriminating, willfulness making with knowledge their falsity. 3 held admission violated Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination Sixth right because its view 'ultimate truth matter asserted pre-trial request no moment. See Simmons v. United States, 390 377, 88 967, 19 1247.' F.2d, 292. cited States Branker, 418 378 1969), application 330 1247 (1968), assertion right. Appeals' reliance misconceives thrust holding. 4 defendants, attempt establish standing move suppression suitcase containing incriminating seized police, testified pretrial hearing similar owned. suppress denied, Government used defendant's testimony chief. Viewing 'integral part' claim exclusion, use impermissible it conditioned exercise what defendant 'believed . be valid Fourth claim' waiver constitutional self-incrimination. Id., 391, 394, 975, 976. 5 To assertedly illegally seized, claimant must show kind interest set forth Brown 411 223, 229—230, 93 1565, 1569—1570, 36 208 (1973), would necessarily should fail therein introduced. need choose between waiving asserting sought suppressed, or invoking but thereby forsaking creates characterized 'intolerable' surrender order assert another. Simmons, U.S., 6 Even assuming principle appropriately extended claims Branker holding, we do not now decide, cf. McGautha California, 402 183, 210—213, 91 1454, 1468 1470, 28 711 (1971), cannot applied protect here. barred prove content. Here, contrast, component derives content, falsity.3 indigent, did have Amendment. We dealing, 'believed' 'valid' claim, see n. 2, supra. Respondent not, therefore, faced type intolerable choice relieve. protective shield converted into license representations issue indigency free risk will accountable falsehood. Cf. Harris York, 401 222, 226, 643, 646, (1971). 7 Reversed remanded. 8 Mr. DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN concurs, dissenting. 9 HARLAN speaking 976, said: '(W)e find surrendered another.' accused rights later discovered prosecution him. gave grounds admissible guilt 'unless makes objection.' Ibid. 10 If gives protected Self-Incrimination Clause Amendment, I how lower level. Jackson, 570, 1209, 138, unenforceable provisions federal act death penalty applicable only those who contested jury. 'inevitable effect' 'to discourage plead guilty deter demand trial.' 581, S.Ct., 1216. 11 suggestion existed does support record. There finding amount restricted beyond reach respondent, actually nor obligations. Yet all facts necessary could conclusion. This passing applications looks applicant's and/or cash position periodic liabilities are. Thus person $600 month has been allowed where present obligations consume entire income. mere fact money therefore enough make frivolous purposes pauperis. may responsibly say there genuine case. 12 Moreover, bona fide legal point laymen determine they speak fear. here involved Totten Kahan thought them law. One seek advice points audit conducted personal finances feels rights. Statements good faith turn utter run able convince others sincerity. 'tension' Amendments arises when judges, benefit hindsight acumen possessed defendant, 'bona fide,' many indigents hesitate freely claim. below phrased it, 'forced gamble remain silent understanding requirements counsel.' 290, 13 Jackson applicable, if reason prevail, Amndment entangled either such entanglement here, concerning crimes yet charged already That so unanimous Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 198, 35 L.Ed. 1110: 14 'It broadly contended appellee witness entitled silence, except criminal himself; language Constitution. Its provision shall compelled any himself. broad construction favor secure. investigation matter, inquire Interstate Commerce Act. matters inquired questions refused answer, himself liable act. was, given refusal answer answers might tend criminate him, showed apprehension that, answered truly fully (as bound all) committed crime Act, prosecuted. His answers, himself, give case.' 15 correct affirm. 16 MARSHALL, 17 Court's per curiam opinion indicates, tension indigent defendants comparable recognized (1968). situation presented instructive. There, truthfully revealing financial hearing, disclosed $250 coconspirator. counsel, other words, forced provide potentially evidence. resolved two ways. first alternative permit seeking lie about wherever incriminating. second alternative, require tell subject sanctions willful knowing failure so, bar information revealed. I, one, consider acceptable. Nor case, conceded willfully misrepresented assets prosecuted statement. 292 See, e.g., Birrell, 470 113 1972). Likewise, Memorandum Opposition disclaims 'right lie' hearing. concession can penalized knowingly falsifying understand conclusion sanction take form separate perjury. statement trial, why pending trial. 21 My Brother DOUGLAS raises possibility fear faith. reasoning however, also bringing lies oath For likewise argued 22 problem solution lie, my view, permitting perjure sanction. Rather, procedures ensure imposition appropriate cases good-faith assertions claims. With respect prosecution, discouragement minimized requirement testimony. protection seeks allegedly Where purportedly furtherance right, introducing unless proved found provided information. 23 solution, then, approach consistent our cases. '(A) rightfully refuse until least derived therefrom defendant.' Lefkowitz Turley, 414 70, 78, 316, 322, 38 274 (1973). requires rights, shelter immunity 24 Applying principles believe properly Appeals. claimed understood trust opened belonged children, merely custodian. 296 3. never finding, admitting Kahan's statements, knew his. sufficient proof warrant admission, satisfy test apply. enough. often mistaken belief correct, Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 84 710, 686 (1964), cautious penalize 25 affirm transcript colloquy arraignment reads follows: 'The Court: Your name, sir? Defendant: am Norbert Kahan, sir. Have you attorney? No, hire do, sir, it's blocked wife divorced. Do want week try straighten out? suit coming up sometime early next year. can't wait Then pleases like assign me attorney. You current funds? beg your pardon? all? Are working? I'm going Jesse Berman point.' determined averments oath, orally presentment written affidavit. custodian trusts,' said children. judge ruled, jury's presence, falsity relevant issues prejudicial effect outweigh probative value. ultimately instructed limited purposes, text, supra, 241, clear implication judge—who alone decides relevancy—thought representations. aforementioned shortly denied having lend view.

Category: 0