Legal Document

112 S.Ct. 1735 504 U.S. 36 118 L.Ed.2d 352 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.John H. WILLIAMS, Jr. No. 90-1972. Argued Jan. 22, 1992. Decided May 4, Syllabus Respondent Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. On his motion, the District Court ordered indictment dismissed without prejudice because Government had failed to fulfill its obligation under Circuit precedent present "substantial exculpatory evidence" jury. Following that precedent, Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. The argument petition should be as improvidently granted question presented not raised below considered and rejected when this certiorari is again here. will review neither pressed nor passed on below, see e.g., Stevens v. Department Treasury, 500 ----, 111 1562, 114 1, but there no doubt crucial issue prosecutor's duty evidence It appropriate an important expressly decided court where, here, although petitioner did contest in case immediately at hand, it so party recent proceeding upon which lower courts relied their resolution issue, concede current correctness precedent. Pp. 40-55. A district may dismiss otherwise valid disclose possession. 45-55. (a) Imposition Appeals' disclosure rule supported courts' inherent "supervisory power" formulate procedural rules specifically required Constitution or Congress. This Court's cases relying power deal strictly with control over own procedures, whereas institution separate from courts, whose functioning do preside. Any have fashion, initiative, procedure very limited certainly would permit reshaping consequence proposed 45-50. (b) preserve enhance traditional "common law" Fifth Amendment demands. To contrary, requiring prosecutor well inculpatory alter jury's historical role, transforming accusatory body sits assess whether adequate basis bringing criminal charge into adjudicatory determine guilt innocence. Because has always been thought sufficient hear only side, and, consequently suspect right present, consider, evidence, incompatible system impose legal such evidence. Moreover, motions quash indictments based sufficiency never allowed, make little sense abstain reviewing evidentiary support judgment while scrutinizing presentation. 51-55. (c) need pursue respondent's save valuable judicial time. If any advantage proposal, Congress free prescribe it. P. 1746. 99 F.2d 898 (CA10 1990), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN O'CONNOR, joined, Parts II III THOMAS, Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr, petitioner. James C. Lang, Tulsa, Okl., respondent. Justice SCALIA Court. 1 2 * 1988, respondent John Williams, Jr., Oklahoma, investor, seven counts "knowingly mak[ing] [a] false statement report . purpose influencing action [of federally insured financial institution]," violation 1014 (1988 ed., Supp. II). According indictment, between September 1984 November 1985 supplied four Oklahoma banks "materially false" statements variously overstated value assets interest income order influence banks' actions loan requests. 3 Williams' misrepresentation allegedly effected through two provided banks, "Market Value Balance Sheet" "Statement Projected Income Expense." former included "current assets" approximately $6 million notes receivable three venture capital companies. Though contained disclaimer these were carried cost rather than market value, asserted listing them assets"—i.e., quickly reducible cash misleading, since knew none companies could afford satisfy short term. second document—the Statement Expense—allegedly misrepresented income, reflect payments received funded entirely loans those thus falsely implied, according Government, deriving "an independent outside source." Brief United States 3. 4 Shortly after arraignment, motion all portions transcripts, Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215 (1963). Upon material, demanded alleging Tenth Circuit's prior decision Page, 808 723, 728 (1987), (emphasis omitted). His contention chosen jury—in particular, general ledgers tax returns, testimony contemporaneous Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding—disclosed that, purposes otherwise, he regularly accounted "notes receivable" (and them) manner consistent Sheet Statement. This, contended, belied intent mislead directly negated essential element charged offense. 5 initially denied reconsideration prejudice. found, hearing, withheld "relevant crime charged," created " 'a reasonable about [respondent's] guilt,' App. Pet. Cert. 23a-24a (quoting Gray, 502 F.Supp. 150, 152 (DC 1980)), "render[ed] indict gravely suspect." 26a. Government's appeal, affirmed order, following earlier supra. first sustained "clearly erroneous" determination jury, 899 898, 900-903 1990). then found behavior 'substantially influence[d]' indict, least 'grave substantial influence,' id., 903 Bank Nova Scotia States, 487 250, 263, 108 2369, 2378, 101 228 (1988)); 903-904. Under circumstances, concluded, abuse discretion require begin anew before jury.1 We certiorari, 294, 116 239 (1991). 6 Before merits matter, necessary discuss propriety reaching them. Certiorari sought question: "Whether government jury." point discussed brief opposing captioned "The 'Question Presented' Petition Was Never Raised Below." Opposition In granting we necessarily denying review. 7 STEVENS' dissent, however, revisits proposes that—after briefing, argument, full consideration Justices Court—we now decline entertain same reason originally rejected, granted. That improvident indeed. Our grant accord our practice, though even if imprudent (since jurisdiction case) reverse course late stage. See, Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, 521, 560, 77 457, 478, 511 (1957) (Harlan, J, concurring part part); Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 648, 94 1868, 1874, 40 431 (1974) (Stewart, concurring, joined J.). Cf. City Tuttle, 471 808, 816, 105 2427, 2432, 85 791 (1985). 8 rule, dissent correctly notes, precludes "the below." Post, 58 (internal quotation marks operates (as phrased) disjunctive, permitting long upon, illustrated some more dispositions. As recently last Term, fact (in STEVENS), entertained circumstances far suggestive petitioner's "sleeping rights" face today. responded follows General tracks today's dissent: 9 submits having He rests submission properly timeliness Appeals, address made opposition certiorari. reject like it, substantive presented." 1567, (1991) (citations omitted) (opinion BLACKMUN, And another said following: "Respondents argue below. appeals court, addressed availability minority shareholders respondents' concluded respondents entitled sue. suffices presented, particularly where is, believe, state evolving definition uncertainty, one importance administration law." Virginia Bankshares, Inc. Sandberg, n. 8, 2749, 2761, 115 929 omitted; internal 12 (Justice concurrence Bankshares also reached merits. Id., S.Ct., 2767.)2 O'CONNOR written: 13 standard previously employed Here, ruled question, exercise appellate jurisdiction; therefore proper light precedents reach ." Springfield Kibbe, 480 257, 266, 107 1114, 1119, 293 (1987) (O'CONNOR, dissenting) original; citations omitted).3 14 There evidence.4 not, paints which, "[a]fter losing position," post, 57. describes "expressly acknowledged [in Appeals] responsibilities described Page," 56 added). thing. Rather, "that certain Page." Response Appellee's Nos. 88-2827, 88-2843 (CA10), p. conceded, other words, Page imposed proper, merely them—over protests nonetheless binding panel apparently impose, absolute condition demand overruling squarely applicable, circuit established itself privy party's vigorous objection, F.2d, 727 ("The counters jury"), "intervening developments law," 59, 5, occurred. seems us unreasonable. 15 short, reconsidered precise resolved granted, answer way. permissible undertake court5 Undoubtedly benefits often parties; inevitably true most desirable announce, being frequent litigant courts. Since announce applicable applied similar (indeed, broadly cast) disadvantage (1991); dissenters themselves approved application (or broader one) rationally indistinguishable us, 2, supra; dissent's suggestion deciding appears favor ordinary litigant," compromises "obligation administer justice impartially," ibid., needs response. 16 does contend obliges possession Instead, building "may, within limits, Congress," Hasting, 461 499, 505, 103 1974, 1978, 76 96 (1983), argues imposition power." think not. rely principle expresses, procedures. Jencks 353 657, 667668, 1007, 1013, 1103 (1957); McNabb 318 332, 63 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). improve truth-finding process trial, see, Mesarosh 9-14, 5-8, (1956), prevent parties reaping benefit incurring harm (imposed laws) governing matters apart trial itself, Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 652 (1914). Thus, (1988), makes clear supervisory can used misconduct amounts "few, carefully drafted ensure integrity functions," Mechanik, 475 66, 74, 106 938, 943, 89 50 (1986) judgment).6 17 hold Scotia, used, means enforcing vindicating legally compelled standards prosecutorial conduct prescribing instance—just establishing themselves. latter preside, matter least, "supervisory" authority exists, here exceeded authority. A. "[R]ooted centuries Anglo-American history," Hannah Larche, 363 420, 490, 80 1502, 1544, 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, result), mentioned Bill Rights, Constitution. textually assigned, therefore, branches Articles. 'is constitutional fixture right.' Chanen, 549 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) Nixon Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, 54, 700, 712, 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 825, 98 72, (1977). whole theory function belongs branch institutional government, serving kind buffer referee people. See Stirone 361 212, 218, 270, 273, 252 (1960); Hale Henkel, 201 43, 61, 26 370, 373, (1906); G. Edwards, Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although normally operates, course, courthouse auspices, relationship traditionally been, speak, arm's length. Judges' direct involvement generally confined constitutive calling jurors together administering oaths office. Calandra, 414 338, 343, 613, 617, 38 561 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). 19 functional independence evident both scope investigate wrongdoing, exercised. "Unlike [c]ourt, predicated specific controversy, 'can suspicion law violated, wants assurance not.' R. Enterprises, 498 722, 726, 795 Morton Salt Co., 338 632, 642-643, 70 357, 364, 401 (1950)). identify offender suspects, nature offense" investigating. Blair 250 282, 39 468, 471, 979 (1919). requires authorization constituting initiate investigation, Hale, supra, U.S., 59-60, 65, 375, leave seek indictment. day-to-day functioning, interference presiding judge. 617. swears witnesses, 6(c), deliberates total secrecy, Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 424-425, 3138. 20 True, cannot compel appearance witnesses production must appeal compulsion required. Brown 359 41, 49, 79 539, 545, 609 (1959). refuse lend assistance seeks override rights accorded Constitution, Gravel 408 606, 92 2614, 33 583 (1972) (grand subpoena effectively qualified limiting questioning Speech Debate Clause immunity), testimonial privileges recognized common law, re Investigation Hugle, 754 863 1985) (same respect privilege confidential marital communications) Kennedy, Even setting, insisted remain "free investigations unhindered external supervision trench legitimate witness called it." Dionisio, 410 17-18, 93 764, 773, 35 67 (1973). Recognizing tradition independence, Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes investigative 'acting independently either prosecuting attorney judge '. 16, 773 added) Stirone, 273). 21 No view proceeding's status constituent "criminal prosecutio[n]," Const., Amdt. VI, protections afforded defendants proceedings body. Double Jeopardy bar returning refused so. Ex parte 287 241, 250-251, 53 129, 132, 283 (1932); Thompson, 251 407, 413-415, 289, 292, 64 333 (1920). twice suggested, held, Sixth counsel attach individual summoned appear subject investigation. Mandujano, 425 564, 581, 1768, 1778, 48 212 (1976) (plurality opinion); Groban, 330, 333, 510, 513, 376 6(d). force questions [the Amendment's] guarantee" against self-incrimination, 346, 619 (citing Kastigar 406 441, 1653, 32 (1972)), suggest obtained use self-incrimination "is nevertheless valid." 619; Lawn 355 339, 348-350, 78 311, 317-318, 321 (1958); Blue, 384 251, 255, 3, 86 1416, 1419, 510 (1966). 22 Given operational separateness come surprise reluctant invoke modes procedure. Over years, many requests evidence-taking process, all, including appealing Calandra faced physical Fourth Amendment; proposal exclusionary extended proceedings, potential injury historic role functions 349, 620. Costello 350 359, 406, 100 397 declined enforce hearsay "would run counter history institution, laymen inquiries unfettered technical rules." 409. 23 These authorities one, remotely comparable they maintain proceedings. 1313. substantially altering relationships prosecutor, itself. Cf., Payner, 447 727, 736, 2439, 2447, 65 468 (1980) (supervisory defendant third rights); Beale, Reconsidering Supervisory Power Criminal Cases: Constitutional Statutory Limits Authority Federal Courts, 84 Colum.L.Rev. 1433, 1490-1494, 1522 (1984). proceed discuss, B 24 justified sort assuring "of informed jury," Wood Georgia, 370 390, 82 1364, 1373, 569 (1962). 27. generalized notions: Judicial quantity quality plainly facilitates, says, performance twin responsibilities, i.e., who justly accused shielding innocent unfounded accusation prosecution. agree. 25 axiomatic innocence, charge. so; assessment side. Blackstone prevailing practice 18th-century England, "only behalf prosecution[,] finding enquiry accusation, afterwards tried determined." Blackstone, Commentaries 300 (1769); M. Pleas Crown 157 (1st Am. ed. 1847). So States. description early American years ratified, "to enquire what foundation be] denied," try suspect's defenses, examine "upon charge] made" prosecutor. Respublica Shaffer, (1 Dall.) 236, (Philadelphia Oyer Terminer 1788); F. Wharton, Pleading Practice 360, pp. 248-249 (8th 1880). consequence, country England investigation ever testify, presented. 157; ex rel. McCann 144 604, 605-606 (CA2), 323 790, 313, 630 (1944). Imposing system. "balanced" entire objective, surely thing done—rather say knows defense target investigation—is entitle tender defense. do) quite absurd. pointless, invite circumnavigate delivering whereupon jury—unless willing take chance deem enough qualify mandatory disclosure.7 Law Firm Zimmerman & Schwartz, P.C., 738 411 (Colo.1990) (duty held satisfied prosecution tendered defense-provided exhibits, testimony, explanations law), aff'd sub nom. Brown, 943 1246, 1257 1991). 27 acknowledges must) violated chooses convince proper. 607. offered familiarize five boxes deposition contain information, offer presumably agree resulting valid. insists, modern alert extent available "merely arm prosecution." attempt convert nonexistent understood "coterminous prosecutor's] charges." 414, consider exculpatory" understand how 28 yet fails comport with, positively contradicts, Motions unheard People Restenblatt, Abb.Prac. 268, 269 (Ct.Gen.Sess.N.Y.1855). Nelson, riding 1852, follows: "No cited, able find any, furnishing looking revising determining founded proof, deficiency complaint. Reed, Fed.Cas. (No. 16,134) (CCNDNY 1852). 29 accepted Nelson's "it institution" challenged "on ground incompetent inadequate 363-364, reaffirmed mere unreliable dismissal indictment," "a challenge reliability competence jury" heard. 261, 2377. sense, think, complaint adequacy recast presentation "incomplete" "misleading."8 words bear repeating: Review facially grounds institution[,] [and] [n]either concept fair [it]." 30 Echoing reasoning 728, would, removing docket unjustified prosecutions, depends, suppose, ratio turn out prosecutions eliminated challenged—for consume "valuable time." matter; For reasons set forth above, conclude pursuant accordingly cause remanded further opinion. 31 ordered. whom join, THOMAS joins III, dissenting. announces changes law. First, justifies special accommodation advanced explaining different substitute raising case. Second, concludes protect fundamental fairness failure species remedied dismissing agreed "yes, case." disagreement case: vigorously argued undisclosed countered warranted arising Circuit, 482 918, 3195, 683 claimed guilty during Specifically, allowed 726-727. After noting are "two views concerning "better, balanced rule" "when discovered revealed original). exculpatory." Ibid. significant.1 Instead controlling distinguished facts factually impossible corporate guilty.2 principal request apply test "follow holding "was prejudiced way." 88-2827 40-43. 37 position asked judicially enforceable petition, clearly pointed 2. appropriately attention stated, repeated, reiterated "not below."3 5-9. Apart petitioner, I salutary case.4 Nevertheless, requisite number saw fit General's petition. explains settled Ante, 44-45. novel, unwise, change rule. suggested repeated proposition hand provides review.5 Illinois Gates, 462 213, 222-223, 2317, 2324, 527 (1982), cited therein. future, provide significant expansion discretionary docket6 or, repetitive litigants, Government. impartially example impartiality emulate. When litigant, seriously ability discharge duty. alone, writ granted.7 Like Hydra slain Hercules, heads. Some cataloged Sutherland's classic Berger 295 78, 55 629, 1314 (1935): 41 "That overstepped bounds characterize officer offense shown record. misstating cross-examination witnesses; putting mouths things said; suggesting him personally proof offered; pretending something persistently cross-examining basis; assuming prejudicial evidence; bullying arguing general, conducting himself thoroughly indecorous improper manner. 42 attorney's undignified intemperate, containing insinuations assertions calculated 84-85, 631-632. 43 exhaustive list kinds tactics overzealous misguided prosecutors adopted reported alone examples knowing perjured Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 340, (1935), suppression favorable person, 87-88, 1197, (1963), misstatements Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320, 336, 2633, 2643, 231 (1985), name just few. 44 Nor proceedings: indicate sometimes infected well. presenting Basurto, 497 781, 786 1974), presence failing inform exculpatory, Phillips Petroleum, 435 610, 615-617 (ND Okla.1977), Samango, 607 877, 884 1979), operating conflict interest, Gold, 470 1336, 1346-1351 Ill.1979), Roberts, 481 1385, 1389, (CD Cal.1980),8 crossexamination witness, Lawson, 158, 162, nn. 6-7 (Md.1980). 45 identification basic why intolerable repetition: 46 Attorney representative sovereignty govern compelling all; shall win case, done. such, peculiar definite servant twofold aim escape innocence suffer. prosecute earnestness vigor—indeed, But, strike hard blows, liberty foul ones. much refrain methods produce wrongful conviction every bring one." 88, 633. 47 equally Indeed, assumes Third recognized, costs continued unchecked misconduct" check trained adversary, virtually immune public scrutiny. poses enormous risk opportunity disprove charges him, handing up devastating personal professional impact later acquittal undo. Where great, consequences mistaken serious, ethical judiciary unfairness, correspondingly heightened." Serubo, 604 807, 817 (CA3 1979). 49 Ciambrone, 601 616 (CA2 Judge Friendly "As Supreme noted, 'the Founders liberties serious crimes instituted presentment Jury." ' 343 [94 561], (1974). dual pressing adviser. conflict, precedence. Remington, 208 567, 573-74 (2d Cir.1953) (L. Hand, dissenting), 347 913 [74 476, 1069] (1954). 51 character peculiarly remember familiar phrase, 'in done.' 88 [55 633, 1314] (1935)." 628-629.9 52 judging essentially trials. (1986), "no harmless error rule] 'errors, defects, irregularities, variances' occurring itself," 71-72, 942. defendant's irregularities Referring "concluded customary harmless-error inquiry conclusion trial," 256, 2374. instances precisely Rule Rules Procedure applies comments witness: abusive expert recess hearing jurors. concedes treatment improper, testified unaffected misconduct. instructed disregard anything heard conversations explained deliberations. 191. ameliorative measures, nothing toward affected evaluation indict." Unquestionably, plain implication discussion misconduct, forbidden written played critical persuading return difficult comprehend, today repudiates assumptions underlying supervise dictates statutes, Procedure. purports invoking doctrine separation powers citing string categorical restraints Needless say, unpersuasive. "textually assigned" "any Articles" ante, 47, autonomous completely beyond branches. Throughout life, moment convened until discharged, court. Learned Hand sixty ago, agent court." Falter 277 590, 528, 72 1003 (1928). similarly characterized jury: 57 "A clothed great areas, remains appendage powerless perform court's aid, witnesses. summons attend give testify if, appearing, refuses so." 546, 280, 470, (1919) ("At inquisitorial incidents States"); 619, 59 has, wide latitude deems obtain permission 617; 362, 408, (1956); Correspondingly, "its operation unrestrained trials." But best jury; lack so.10 60 create example, "may violate privilege, 619. violating quashing modifying subpoena, issuing protective forbidding 628-629, 2628-2629, (1972). are, series cases, contrary result.11 61 recognizes fashion suggests procedure, 48-49, "prescrib[e] 46-47, independent, institution. disagree. 62 closing eyes countless forms occur inside secrecy room. investigatory body; serves "protector citizens arbitrary oppressive governmental action." Explaining "independent" "informed," wrote (1962): "Historically, regarded primary security hasty, malicious persecution; invaluable society standing accuser accused, individual, group, other, dictated intimidating malice ill will." 1373. blinks reality adequately intentionally misled prosecutor—on knowledge will, necessity, rely. Unlike am unwilling tolerated—no be, distort jury—simply proscribed statute Such sharp break unprecedented, unwarranted, unwise. Unrestrained inconsistent redressed methods.12 66 What, then, disposition case? place probable believe laws occurred, trial. Requiring ferret burdens mean believing withholding contrary. aware negates seeking person." Dept. Justice, Attorneys' Manual, Title 9, ch. 11, ¶ 9-11.233, (1988). guilt,13 resolve my doubts ask withheld. decide General, yes, preclude cause. endorse 68 More importantly, firmly opposed favored litigator, cross-appeal contended 904. distinguish "[a]lthough petitions treated open needed cases." 4. significance distinction eludes us. While (to adhered) litigants implicitly dissent—under issues pressed, reviewed "open" one—makes except device Bankshares. adversary process" object concern, 5; disputed parties, compromised thinks anything, believes confronting impression, acute. observes disposes "new debated rule." 5. enough, wholly unfounded: could—or did—the claim ambushed summary undisputed subjected plenary per curiam Kibbe principally considerations: (1) instruction, Civil Procedure, "[n]o assign giving [of] instruction unless objects thereto retires verdict," (2) addition explicitly 259, 260, 1115, 1116. Of circumstance exists Relying repeating, "We 'ferret bit potentially evidence,' Other exists. requirement promotes economy 'if fully proved petit jury.' 900 1990) excerpt abundantly mystifying assertion, premise "passed on" decision, done creation might appropriate. "due regard courts," McGoldrick Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 430, 434-435, 670, 672, 849 (1940), greater restraint applying "pressed upon" context, absence seemingly deprives rest ground. 222, 2323, 59; Bankers Life Casualty Co. Crenshaw, 486 71, 79-80, 1645, 1651, cf. Cohen Cowles Media 501 2513, 2517, 586 ("It irrelevant federal-law supreme actually decided"). contains rules, providing, person deliberating voting," 6(d), placing strict controls "matters 6(e); 418, 3133, 743 (1983). Additional others) Code. §§ 6002, 6003 (setting procedures immunity prosecution); 1623 (criminalizing declarations jury); 2515 (prohibiting unlawfully intercepted wire oral communications); 1622 subornation perjury). Rule, statute, stand prescribable code, suggests, 64-65. All allegations Court—without considering validity law—for meet standard. How gamble purported 900, recite inclusive 902 ("[T]he receive information relevant [exculpatory] adopt"); ibid. ("We conclude, exculpatory"). Costello, instead complaining reliance complained introduction Estepa, 1132, 1136-1137 1972) (prosecutor introduce available); Arenella, Reforming State Preliminary Hearing Prevent Conviction Without Adjudication, Mich.L.Rev. 463, 540 ("[S]ome cautiously begun us[e] revitalized circumvent prohibition evaluating jury"). 723 (10th Cir.1987), includes withhold complied principles stated Considering whole, went beyond, requirements 9-10. Petroleum Co.,, 610 Okla.1977). type excluded. Phillips, sent home day, witness. session, members, immunity, showed knowingly committed offense, corporation guilty, exculpatory. instant documents 38. Duignan 274 195, 200, 566, 568, 71 996 (1927); also, Lovasco, 783, 788, 7, 97 2044, 2048, 752 (1977); Ortiz, 422 891, 95 2585, 2589, 623 (1975). Until requirement. (1991), 41-42, routine applications cases. Similarly, answered O'Connor decide, 263-266, 1117-1119. contrast, involved restatement court," insufficient below" (1982). expresses inability difference application, other. assumption method arriving correct decisions. preserved. exceptional new Circuit. exception litigant's deprived re-examine intervening "Sandbagging" "expressed predicate judgments. newly announced satisfies "improvident" raise opposition, writ, briefed argued. 40. vote majority NAACP Overstreet, 118, 409 (1966) (dismissing, Justices). frequently argued; fact, already Term. Gibson Florida Bar, --- 432 PFZ Properties, Rodriguez, 1151, 117 400 (1992). explain dismissal, occasion opposition. "fail[ed] polygraph despite Pregerson Jury, compound[ed] indiscretion erroneously unequivocally telling inadmissible." F.Supp., 1389. Ciambrone Friendly's appraisal avoid fundamentally unfair Mansfield explained: "On selectivity engage instance, known perjurious, 785-86 (9th Cir.1974), leading eyewitness 1136-37 Cir.1972). add negating should, justice, reasonably expected lead indict. ABA Project Standards Justice—the Prosecution Function, 3.6, 90-91." 623. regulate prescribe" 55. 363, solely invalid Amendment. courts" way persuasive rules. Neither change." barely mentions intended serve assume acknowledge—as does—that "could subvert justify intervention. Franks Delaware, 438 154, 164-171, 2674, 2680-2684, 667 (1978) (discussing analogous considerations search warrant affidavit deliberately police statements)." 8. regard, lenient "information raises Defendant's defraud," "renders erroneous." 902-904

Classification Label: 0