Document: 383 U.S. 169 86 S.Ct. 749 15 L.Ed.2d 681 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Thomas F. JOHNSON. No. 25. Argued Nov. 11 and 15, 1965. Decided Feb. 24, 1966. Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George Cochran Doub, David W. Louisell, Berkeley, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent Johnson, a former United States Congressman, was indicted convicted on seven counts violating federal conflict interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 281 (1964 ed.),1 one count conspiring to defraud States, 371 ed.).2 The Court Appeals Fourth Circuit set aside conviction conspiracy count, 337 F.2d 180, holding that Government's allegation Johnson had conspired make speech compensation floor House Representatives barred by Art. I, 6, Federal Constitution which provides 'for any Speech or Debate in either House, they (Senators Representatives) shall not be questioned other Place.' ordered new trial counts, having found evidence adduced under unconstitutional aspects infected entire prosecution. 2 his three codefendants were guilty consisted, broad outline, an agreement among Congressman Frank Boykin Alabama, J. Kenneth Edlin William L. Robinson who connected with Maryland savings loan institution, whereby two Congressmen would exert influence Department obtain dismissal pending indictments company its officers mail fraud charges. It further claimed as part this general scheme read favorable independent associations distributed copies allay apprehensions potential depositors. approached Attorney General Assistant charge Criminal Division urged them 'to review' indictment. For these services received substantial sums form 'campaign contribution' 'legal fees.' Government contended, presumably jury found, payments never disclosed Justice, bona fide campaign contributions legal fees, but made simply 'buy' Congressman. 3 bulk submitted dealt financial transactions conspirators, activities Justice. As substantive no question is before us. has long been held encompass only conspiracies might involve loss government funds, also 'any purpose impairing, obstructing, defeating lawful function department government.' Haas v. Henkel, 216 462, 479, 30 249, 254, 54 L.Ed. 569. No argument made, nor do we think it could successfully Clause reaches conduct, such involved attempt wise related due functioning legislative process. application statute improperly motivated raises constitutional problem deal.3 I. 4 language clearly proscribes at least some taken during trial. Extensive questioning went concerning how much written himself, administrative assistant, outsiders representing company.4 attorney asked specifically about certain sentences speech, reasons their inclusion personal knowledge factual material supporting those statements.5 In closing theory prosecution very dependent upon wording speech.6 addition manner preparation precise ingredients inquired into motives giving it.7 5 infirmity infecting merely matter introduction inadmissible evidence. attention given speech's substance motivation incidental case, have avoided omitting lines excluding depended showing solely primarily serve private interests, making acting good faith, is, he did prepare deliver way ordinary prepares delivers speech. Johnson's defense quite naturally remarks different from usual congressional rebut prosecution's case introduced speeches several speaking same subject, argued talk occasioned unfair attack newspaper, asserted subject topic concern State constituents. We see escape conclusion intensive judicial inquiry, course Executive Branch violates express policies underlie it. II. 6 approved Constitutional Convention without discussion opposition. See V Elliot's Debates 406 (1836 ed.); II Records 246 (Farrand ed. 1911). present version clause formulated Convention's Committee Style, original vote approval slightly formulation repeated almost verbatim Article Articles Confederation: 'Freedom debate Congress impeached court, place out * *.' Article, slight modification, turn identical English Bill Rights 1689: 'That Freedom Speech, Proceedings Parliament, ought Place Parliament.' & M., Sess. 2, c. 2. 7 This 1689 culmination struggle parliamentary supremacy. Behind simple phrases lies history between Commons Tudor Stuart monarchs successive utilized criminal civil law suppress intimidate critical legislators.8 Since Glorious Revolution Britain, throughout history, privilege recognized important protection independence integrity legislature. See, e.g., Story, Commentaries 866; Works James Wilson 37—38 (Andrews 1896). American governmental structure serves additional reinforcing separation powers so deliberately established Founders. Madison noted Federalist 48: 8 'It agreed all sides, properly belonging departments, directly compleatly administered departments. equally evident, neither possess indirectly, overruling over others administration respective powers. will denied, power encroaching nature, effectually restrained passing limits assigned After discriminating therefore theory, classes power, may nature legislative, executive, judiciary; next most difficult task, provide practical security each against invasion others. What be, great solved.' (Cooke ed.) 9 privilege, protecting possible unfriendly executive hostile judiciary, manifestation 'practical security' ensuring 10 because tradition well our polity, there little illumination clause. Clearly precedent controls decision first Kilbourn Thompson, 103 168, 26 377, suit false imprisonment alleging Speaker members petitioner arrested contempt Congress. order arrest, second defendants liable. whether participation resolution ordering arrest 'speech debate.' should broadly, include 'words spoken debate,' anything 'generally done session relation business it.' U.S., 204. Tenney Brandhove, 341 367, 71 783, 95 1019, issue protected member California Legislature brought Civil §§ 43, 47(3) (1946 ed.), legislator used official forum silence plaintiff deter prevent him effectively exercising rights free petition redress grievances 371, 785. proper; viewed state being parity similar concluded 12 'The claim unworthy does destroy privilege. Fletcher Peck, Cranch 87, 130, 162, consonant court inquire legislators, remained unquestioned.' S.Ct., 788. III. 13 indicate broadly effectuate purposes; deals, however, based abused position give particular return remuneration interests. However represensible conduct believe extends far basis impeding discharge functions. essence context Congressman's motivated, appear precisely what generally forecloses inquiry. 14 Even though casts bright light us9 apparent born desire avoid suits Tenney, rather intimidation accountability possibly judiciary. notorious proceedings King Charles I Eliot, Hollis, Valentine, How.St.Tr. 294 (1629), Crown able imprison charges seditious libel detain chair adjournment.10 after Restoration, Holdsworth noted, '(t)he interpreted utmost harshness whose political religious tenets distasteful VI Holdsworth, A History Law 214 (1927). fear caused Parliament judiciary well, judges often lackeys monarchs,11 levying punishment more wishes crown than gravity offence.' Id., 214—215. There doubt instigation disfavored legislators chief prompting England and, system powers, predominate thrust Clause. scrutinizing prosecution, then, look particularly prophylactic purposes clause.12 argues meant prosecutions 'content' actions, founded 'the antecedent unlawful accepting agreeing accept bribe.' Brief 11. Although historically frequent instrument intimidating sole employed,13 framed broadest terms. broader indicated nineteenth century British Ex parte Wason, L.R. Q.B. 573 (1869), alleged conspiracy. citizen moved magistrate required prosecute Lords wrongfully heard floor. denied motion, stating statements 'could foundation *. And person amenable law.' 576. (Cockburn, C.J.) Lush added, 'I am allow doubted moment intentions cannot respect say House.' 577. 16 vein contends violated gravamen conspiracy, defendant, itself.14 Whatever room factors kind conclude save count. undisputed speech; likewise funds; controversy centered questions decided desirable, prepared it, indictment itself focused particularity underlying contents: 17 '(15) said THOMAS JOHNSON render services, compensation, wit, defending operations Maryland's 'independent' associations, stability solvency thereof, reliability 'commercial insurance' investments Representatives.' App. 5—6. hold inquiries necessarily contravenes emphasize limited involving circumstances presented Our touch which, here application, draw acts defendant performing them. And, intimating view thereon, expressly leave open consideration when arises entailing inquiry motivations, narrowly drawn passed exercise regulate members.15 19 Appeals' can dismissing entirety. charge. With references aspect eliminated, precluded thus wholly purged elements offensive IV. 20 entitled admission prejudicial well. reserved right contest trial, but, except footnote reply brief, argue Court; contrary stated oral stood reference count.16 find occasion review assessment record respect. 21 foregoing affirm judgment remand District consistent opinion. 22 ordered. 23 BLACK took case. 24 WHITE 25 Chief WARREN, whom DOUGLAS BRENNAN join, concurring dissenting part. concur use trial—with examination authorship, content—was violative join time matter. Court's refusal decide validity prompts me dissent. my view, are us, raise resolved now since respondent probably issues forthcoming reprosecution. 27 explains reach referring single statement counsel outset argument, p. 186, n. 16, ante. colloquy, remarked consider raised importance, felt effect tainted unavoidably require 1,300-page record. Prior exhaustively Appeals, mentioned certiorari compliance Supreme Rule 40(1)(d)(1) (2), brief merits. Both later answer Bench, contended evidence, arguments instructions distinct counts. At best, ambiguous, if puzzling.1 Beyond that, himself merits, pp. 100—101 86, devoted 33 pages phase addressed argument. Under unique circumstances, duty carefully scrutinize facts 28 reading record, erred determining jury's amply supports verdict counts—that $20,000 attempting dismiss co-conspirators, disclosing role enterprise. classic example violation Member Congress.2 May 84 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 175 994, 1006; Booth, 148 112, 117 (Cir.Ct. Ore.). court's separating seem unimpeachable. minor nothing inflame pointed pride vigilance institutions State. reveals participants aware finding criminality authorize conclusions salutary principle conscientiously followed. Therefore, convictions 'Whoever, Delegate Congress, indirectly receives agrees receive, rendered rendered, another, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, party interested, department, agency, martial, officer, civil, military, naval commission, fined $10,000 imprisoned years, both; incapable office honor, trust, profit States.' 'If persons conspire commit offense agency thereof purpose, act object five both.' Only applicability affirmed co-defendants appeals consolidated amicus curiae Edlin, cases appeal conviction. direct Martin Heflin, 182—191, esp. 189—190: 'Q. What, anything, gave him? A. recall, assistant go material, too mistaken, called Buarque left discuss more. meeting you thereafter contact regard speech? telephoned figures Institute—background supplied, supply sent draft, places, blank places filled in. technical phases (sic) information, statistical information forth. You supplied draft you? Yes. once looked over? Returned cross-examination Manual Buarque, 488—494; co-defendant Robinson, 772—775; Transcript 79—93. 84—86: tell Heflin came your luncheon work ultimately June 30? My always office, public relations man, institute Independent Savings Loan Associations. He article local newspapers. loans. talked short time. told writing, conversations answers made,—he room, met together. him, not, speeches? arrangements wanted make, why, he, course, cooperative him. Now, time—I assume speech—that association another. Is referred to? Not then following too. testified know name First Continental Colony 30, testimony? testimony mean finally clerk printed Congressional Record, stresses value commercial mortgage guaranty insurance, not? yes. Isn't fact carried insurance? that? None, whatever. fact, emphasized reprint, so-called 'reprints." 91: put none convicted, were? were, names. Well, let ask this: How you, indictment, speech: "I personally leading indictments. them, another.' Yes, help prepared.' Oral Argument behalf Government, 232—248, 244—245: submit jury, logical explanation Edlin. day's pay man selling Office influence. 'Congressman stand Association 'Now, recall itself, 400 Maryland, exactly convicted. '(')Personally, other.(') oath, Members Jury, even bother check ascertain truthfully so, utterly completely irresponsible reprehensible, submits fact. both nevertheless 1960. 'Those statements, untrue deceitful.' 79—81: Estabrook December 20, 1961, London, urging own people constituents? fact? Which conference Estabrook? term constituent, constituent yours ever spoke correct? be. recall. be—you delay it? prior discussed programs problems constituents Eastern Shore Maryland? Oh, had. degree want too, refer interested statewide election Senate 1964.' C. Wittke, Parliamentary Privilege (Ohio Univ. 1921); Neale, Commons' Free Studies (Seton-Watson 1924). Compare Boston, Commw.L.R. 386 (Austl.1923); Queen White, Sup.Ct.R. 322 (N.S.W.1875); Regina Bunting, Ont. 524 (1885), commonwealth dealing liability bribery distinguishable contexts. 78 Harv.L.Rev. 1473, 1474. attempted distinguish true conspiracies: 'And hereby Liberties Parliament-men question; matters speak manner. But Defendants slander state, sedition discord king, peers, people; course. every king's pleasure: Sir John Elliot Tower prisons.' How.St.Tr., 310. account Taswell-Langmead's (Plucknett 1960), 376—378. 38 years 'was illegal judgment, freedom reversed 1668. Taswell-Langmead, supra, 378, note 55. 503—511. Thornhill 310 88, 60 736, 1093, New York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 710, 686, expressions central importance uninhibited expression guaranteed populace Fourteenth Amendments. Strode's Case, earliest 1512 Richard Strode, Devonshire, bill regulating tin miners appears interest. prosecuted Stannary Court, special jurisdiction deal miners, obstruct mining. sentenced imprisoned. released bill, declaring suits, accusements, condemnations, executions, fines, amerciaments, punishments, corrections, grievances, charges, impositions, had, hereafter unto Richard, afore specified speaking, reasoning, communed treated of, void effect.' Hen. 8, reproduced Tanner, Documents 558, 559 (2d 1930); 248—249. During Eliot 1629 Act applied act. 294, 309. 1667 Houses declared formal resolutions law, indemnify Parliaments, touching Bills, Matter Matters declaratory antient necessary Privileges Hatsell, Precedents 86—87 (1786); persuasive preventing treason prosecutions. introduce reprint case-in-chief, show co-conspirators Certain portions shown outlined red because, witness testified, 'these points pertinent trying across ease person's 259. copy reflect substance. Cf. Note, Bribed Immunity Prosecution, 75 Yale L.J. 335, 347—348 (1965). follows: now, revolves around taking money Congress.' Question Bench: 'Well, (to be) it?' Counsel: (the Appeals) phase. here. largely determined whole bring here, involved, 1, Section place. crime triable take speech?' confess surprise abandoned major place, statutes 1906, Burton 202 344, 688, 50 1057, remain viable although lately revised, Manning, Conflict Interest 14—73 (1964). Moreover, strenuously many erroneous vitiate especially where concurrent see, Romano, 382 136, 279, 210; Gainey, 380 63, 65, 85 754, 756, 658; Sinclair 279 263, 299, 49 268, 273, 73 692; Barnard 342 309 (C.A.9th Cir.), 948, 403, 356. are, addition, numerous petitioner-defendant certiorari. sentence lenient—six months run concurrently. authorizes five-year prison fine, permitted two-year fine violation, 281.

Category: 7