Document: 350 U.S. 359 76 S.Ct. 406 100 L.Ed. 397 Frank COSTELLO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 72. Argued Jan. 16, 17, 1956. Decided March 5, Rehearing Denied April, 23, See 351 904, 692. Messrs. Osmond K. Fraenkel, Morris Shilensky, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari in this case to consider a single question: "May defendant be required stand trial and conviction sustained where only hearsay evidence was presented grand jury which indicted him?" 819, 48. 2 Petitioner, Costello, wilfully attempting evade payment income taxes due United States years 1947, 1948 1949.1 The charge that petitioner falsely fraudulently reported less than he his wife actually received during taxable question. Petitioner promptly filed motion inspection minutes dismissal indictment. His based on an affidavit stating firmly convinced there could have been no legal or competent before him since had all paid due. denied. At followed Government offered designed show increases is Costello's net worth attempt prove more question reported.2 To establish its called examined 144 witnesses introduced 368 exhibits. All testimony documents related business transactions expenditures by wife. prosecution concluded calling three government agents. Their investigations produced used against at trial. They were allowed summarize vast amount already heard introduce computations showing, if correct, far greater they reported. held such summarizations admissible 'net worth' like this. v. Johnson, 319 503, 63 1233, 87 1546. 3 Counsel asked each witness whether appeared returned This cross-examination developed fact investigating officers jury. After case, again moved dismiss indictment ground 'hearsay,' firsthand knowledge upon their based. Nevertheless court refused indictment, convicted. Court Appeals affirmed,3 holding valid even though sole hearsay.4 here urges: (1) solely violates part Fifth Amendment providinng 'No person shall answer capital, otherwise infamous crime, unless presentment Grand Jury * *' (2) does not invalidate we should now lay down rule guidance federal courts. McNabb States, 318 332, 340 341, 608, 612—613, 819. 4 provides prosecutions capital crimes must instituted presentments indictments juries. But neither nor any other constitutional provision prescribes kind juries act. English institution, brought country early colonists incorporated Constitution Founders. There every reason believe our intended operate substantially progenitor. basic purpose provide fair method instituting criminal proceedings persons believed committed crimes. jurors selected from body people work hampered rigid procedural evidential rules. In fact, act own free make information as deemed satisfactory. Despite broad power institute grew popular favor with years. It acquired independence England control Crown judges. Its adoption preferring charges serious cases shows high place it instrument justice. And old has convened laymen, technical rules, acting secret, pledged indict one because prejudice special favor. As late 1927 historian say still pleased do so.5 1852 Nelson circuit cited, able find any, furnishing authority looking into revising judgment evidence, determining finding founded sufficient proof *.' Reed, 27 Fed.Cas. pages 727, 738, 16,134.6 5 Holt 218 245, 31 2, 4, 54 1021, decide quashed supported incompetent evidence. Aside 'there very little accused.' hold quashed, pointing out 'The abuses practice would enhanced upset ground.' page 248, 4. same thing true nature 'hearsay.' If open challenge inadequate jury, resulting delay great indeed. result merits always insist preliminary determine competency adequacy Amendment. An legally constituted unbiased jury,7 drawn prosecutor, face, enough call merits. requires nothing more. 6 urges exercise supervise administration justice courts permitting defendants are adequate No persuasive reasons advanced establishing rule. run counter whole history laymen conduct inquiries unfettered Netiehr concept change. merits, entitled strict observance rules bring about verdict. Defendants entitled, however, interminable but add assurance 7 Affirmed. 8 CLARK HARLAN tooks consideration decision case. 9 BURTON, concurring. 10 I agree denial quash my view, justify breadth declarations made assume preclude examination grand-jury action ascertain existence bias Likewise, seems me shown substantial rationally base quashed. empty crime robs much protective value private citizen. 11 Here, apparently may fairly included later given agents who said testified trial, summarized financial accused qualified testify knowledge. use Holmes' phrase testimony, standing alone, 'incompetent circumstances', supra, yet charged provided basis laying foundation it, important obtained. 12 sustain under above circumstances well enough, Judge Learned Hand 'if established facts, ought quashed; then substance abdicated.' Cir., 221 F.2d 668, 677. Accordingly, concur judgment, so stated subject limitations expressed. also, Notes, 62 Harv.L.Rev. 111; 65 Yale L.J. 390. § 145(b) Internal Revenue Code 1939, 53 Stat. 63, 26 U.S.C.A. 145(b). also count year 1946 found guilty charge. For discussions method,' see Holland 348 121, 75 127, 99 150; Friedberg 142, 138, 188; Smith 147, 194, 192; Calderon, 160, 186, 202. 668. reversed petitioner's 1947 grounds material here. Varying views expressed concerning challenged See, e.g., Chadwick 141 F. 225; Violon, C.C., 173 501; Nanfito 20 376, 378; Brady 24 405; Banks 204 666; Zacher 227 219. collected 38 680; 71 Cent.L.J. 9; Joyce, Indictments (2d ed., Blakemore, 1924), 166 168; Note, A.L.R. 1432. Holdsworth, History Law (1927), 323. development institution England, Hale Henkel, 201 43, 59, 370, 372, 50 652; Blair 250 273, 282, 39 468, 471, 979; McGrain Daugherty, 273 135, 157, 47 319, 323, 580; 1546; Blackstone Commentaries 301 et seq.; Pollock Maitland, (1895), 130; 312—323; Morse, A Survey System, Or.L.Rev. 101, 217, 295. Pierre State Louisiana, 306 354, 59 536, 83 757.

Category: 0