Legal Document

24 United States Supreme Court Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 275 90 Reporter 363 396 U.S. 77 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.James D. KNOX. Number 17. Argued Oct. 14, 1969. Decided Dec. 8, Mervyn Hamburg, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Judge Edwin Smith, Houston, Tex., appellee. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellee Knox has been charged with six counts violation federal law in connection his wagering activities. The first four indictment charge that between July 1964 and October 1965 he engaged business accepting wagers without filing Internal Revenue Service Form 11—C, special return registration application required by § 4412 Code 1954, paying occupational tax imposed 4411 Code. Counts Five Six when did file such a form on 1965, filed supplemental next day, knowingly willfully understated number employees behalf—in 18 KF62 1001, general criminal provision punishing fraudulent statements made to any agency. 2 moved dismiss indictment, asserting this Court's decisions Marchetti versus States, 390 39, 88 697, 19 889 (1968), Grosso 62, 709, 906 had held invalid1 provisions laws him return. Government response stated it would not pursue but argued Knox's objections based were 'largely irrelevant' Six. District disagreed. It dismissed all counts, reasoning could be prosecuted 'failure answer correctly' since Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination have prevented prosecution respect.' 298 F.Supp. 1260, 1261. direct appeal from dismissal two charging violations we noted probable jurisdiction, 394 971, 89 1452, 22 751 (1969).2 3 In Bryson 64, 355, 264 (1969), decided today, reaffirmed holding Dennis 384 855, 86 1840, 16 973 (1966), one who furnishes false information feigned compliance statutory requirement cannot defend fraud chalenging validity itself. Bryson, like Dennis, involved 9(h) National Labor Relations Act, as amended Taft-Hartly 61 Statutes-at-Large 146, which was attacked an abridgment First freedoms bill attainder forbidden Article I, 9, Constitution. contrast, alleges infringement self-incrimination. We do think different constitutional source claim removes case ambit principle laid down those decisions. Government's demand is no more element 1001 here than Bryson.3 4 charges forms Director contained false, material information,4 accusation concededly falls within terms 1001. However, claims bars filings because they voluntary compelled §§ 7203 He points out if truthful complete 4412, incriminated himself under Texas laws. On other hand, at all, subjected 7203.5 choosing third alternative, submission form, merely opted least three evils, duress allegedly makes choice involuntary purposes Amendment. 5 For proposition relies Lookretis, 398 Federal Reporter, 2nd 64 (C.A.7th Cir. 1968), where, after remanded reconsideration light Marchetti, see 338, 1097, 1219 Appeals ruled disclosures compulsion introduced their maker proceeding. offended Lookretis precisely defendant succumbed furnishing requested incriminatory information. does upon filed, nor being failure supply taken course statute designed compel, gave take. 6 This deny presence injected pressure into predicament time forms. At time, Kahriger, 345 22, 73 510, 7 L.Ed. 754 (1953), Lewis 348 419, 75 415, 99 475 (1955), established bar 11—C. But responded found communicating information, simply testimonial compulsion. ground complaint inculpated prior or subsequent act; rather, committed act, giving Government. If unlawful Marchetti,6 may defense traditional doctrine person criminally responsible act duress. See generally Model Penal 2.09, 3.02 (Proposed Official Draft, 1962); id., Comment (Tent. Draft 10, 1960). only sense there relevance attempted distinction predecessors, Kapp, 302 214, 58 182, 82 205 (1937), Kay 303 1, 468, 607 (1938), cases voluntarily purpose obtaining benefits argues sanction file, coupled danger incrimination truthfully, coercive its effect than, example, prospect petitioners lose jobs union officers unless non-Communist affidavits. While so, question whether contains seeds 'duress' defense, perhaps statement 'willfully' must determined initially trial.7 before us intimate view matter. 8 judgment reversed. 9 Reversed. 10 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 11 case, 264, relevant inquiry 'constitutionally speaking 'within jurisdiction" government agency require certain Id., 74, 361 (dissenting opinion). 61, 889, 11—C unconstitutional per se. clear, however, supra, 906, 'jurisdiction' subject 12 where individual, knowledge right refuse provide nonetheless provides Under 97 754, 475, controlling faced 26 despite unconditional. majority prohibited requesting prosecuting individual comply request. 80, n. 3, 365. power request filed. and, full silence Amendment, done so voluntarily, quite case. That scheme then effect, demanded unconditionally regardless fact incriminate him. Heavy penalties placed form. 13 position remain silent irrespective command submit them. Had asserted clear not, consistently Grosso, form.* Thus argument rest theory 'waived' lieu A similar petitioner concerning pay 4411. said: 14 'Given Kahriger Lewis, books petitioner's trial, left untouched Albertson SACB, 382 70, 194, 15 165, are unable present issue effective waiver privilege.' U.S., 71, S.Ct., 715. equally applicable here, still And Leary 395 U.S 6, 27—29, 1532, 1543 1544, 23 57. reasons my dissent Page 361, Black's separate 875, 1851 1852, 973, authority included way prejudiced view, matter jurisdiction' Service. 17 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions affirm below. nn. infra. Such authorized Criminal 3731, provides: 'An behalf district courts following instances: 'From decision setting aside, dismissing count thereof, invalidity construction founded. sustaining motion bar, put jeopardy.' sustained basis facts peculiar conclusion misstatements amounts applied class cases, constitutionally invalid. generality impact appears render our jurisdictional fortiori compared analogous holdings Dahnke-Walker Milling company Bondurant, 257 282, 42 106, 66 239 (1921); Fleming Rhodes, 331 100, 102—104, 67 1140, 1141 1142, 91 1368 (1947); Wissner Wissner, 338 655, 70 398, 94 424 (1950); Department Employment 385 356—357, 87 464, 465—466, 414 (1966). prefer jurisdiction aspect 3731 rather advocated Government, statute's 'motion bar' provision, scope latter will fulldress consideration, problems 'dismissing indictment' Sisson, consideration postponed, 812, 92, 65 (1969). 'in department States,' necessary Even reading correct, fail explained Bryson. express filing, submitted raised problem. (1953); (1955). Further, hold proper assertion direction. infra; also 69—70, 7, 714—715. neither Count affirmative misstatements, omissions. 'were true, complete, and/or agents receiving misrepresented understated, number, name, stamp street address, city state said JAMES KNOX's omitted * *.' language identical except apparently inadvertent difference punctuation. Although wording entirely need decide fair encompasses misstatements. read alleging violated 'by wilfully making statement' forms, court review indictment. E.g., Harriss, 347 612, 74 808, 98 989 (1954); Petrillo, 332 1538, 1877 Borden Co., 308 188, 193, 60 186, 84 181 (1939). CIO, 335 68 1349, 92 1849 (1918). 2, supra. Title 'Any title estimated tax, regulations thereof make (other requird section 6015 orsection 6016), keep records, fails return, times regulations, shall, addition provided law, guilty misdemeanor conviction shall fined $10,000, imprisoned year, both, together costs prosecution.' stressed 'that these impermissible; properly assert punished requirements. If, circumstances, taxpayer confronted substantial hazards self-incrimination, otherwise outside privilege's protection, nothing today shield various prescribed statutes.' 709. Nothing indicates hazard less disqualified reason 4412. Rule 12(b)(1) Rules Procedure, cautions trial judge consider 'capable determination issue,' evidentiary questions type should motion. As states: 'Nothing 83, 367 6.

Classification Label: 0