Legal Document

332 U.S. 575 68 Supreme Court Reporter 237 92 L.Ed. 180 SEALFONv.UNITED STATES. Number 174. Argued Dec. 11, 1947. Decided Jan. 5, 1948. Mr. John Judge Wilson, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. W. Marvin Smith, respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case presents question whether an acquittal conspiracy to defraud United States precludes a subsequent prosecution commission substantive offense, on particular facts here involved. 2 Two indictments were returned against petitioner and others. One charged its governmental function conserving rationing sugar by presenting false invoices making representations ration board effect that certain sales products made exempt agencies.1 The other indictment Greenberg with offense,2 viz., uttering publishing as true invoices. was tried first following shown: 3 Defendant manufactured syrup approached Sanford Doctors, salesman brokerage concern, sell vanilla syrup. Doctors negotiated some who did wholesale business under name Sero Syrup company Thereafter asked get list from showing places where told him if any agencies, could in larger quantities. so informed time thereafter wrote saying, 'at present our syrups are being sold at Brooklyn Navy Yard' various defense plants. Petitioner his vending which had machines Yard but it not no such. presented series purporting show delivery Yard. Petitioner's letter never shown board. On basis these received replacement certificates 21 million pounds sugar, 10 he form syrup, non-exempt consumers, mostly Natio al Biscuit Company. payments check gave checks trucker latter cashed, deducted trucking fee, paid Greenberg. 4 jury verdict guilty petitioner.3 trial introduced trial. pleaded proceeded theory aided abetted offense. invoices, Greenberg, essentially same testimony again In addition, brought out cross-examination unsuccessfully sought contained Geenberg conclude moving factor scheme constructed around petitioner's familiar Greenberg's intention submit further testified $500,000 cash agreement rebate two cents pound all or used sentenced five years' imprisonment fined $12,000. 5 moved quash second grounds double jeopardy (abandoned this Court) res judicata, also objected introduction evidence adduced district judge ruled petitioner, court below affirmed. Cir., 161 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 481. We granted petition writ certiorari because importance administration criminal law. 6 It has long been recognized offense commit separate distinct offenses. Pinkerton versus States, 328 640, 643, 66 1180, 1182, 90 1489. Thus, exceptions, one may be prosecuted both crimes. Ibid. But judicata prosecution. That doctrine applies well civil proceedings (United Oppenheimer, 242 85, 87, 37 68, 69, 61 161, L.R.A. 516; De Angelo, 138 466, 468; Harris State, 193 Ga. 109, 17 South Eastern 573, 147 American Law Reports 991; see Frank Mangum, 309, 334, 35 582, 590, 59 969) operates those matters issue determined though offenses different. See Adams, 281 202, 205, 50 269, 74 807. 7 Thus only is jury's determination favorable essential conviction depends upon each instructions arrived 8 Respondent argues cannot known certainty, pr dicated party over-all ultimately involving Baron Corporation.4 said established certainty member such conspiracy, therefore foreclosed pursuant States. given might have found conspired yet refused infer conspiracy. 9 rendered, however, must set practical frame viewed eye circumstances proceedings. look them light they shed issues verdict. Cf. Sollar Hanscome, 158 216, 222, 15 816, 818, 39 956. indictment. There connect directly anyone than Only least inferred convicted. And instruction keyed acquitted there reasonable doubt Nowhere return Corporation well.5 Viewed setting, concededly sent letter, do defraud. So interpreted, earlier later basic identical. As we read records trials, convicted either proof Under introduced, way. Indeed, respondent does urge could. core prosecutor's same: surrounding it, was, course, additional adding detail leading up alleged agreement, participation therein, what got it. most more likely entered into corrupt agreement. attempt prove crucial prosecution's necessarily adjudicated former non-existent. do. 11 Reversed. § 28, Criminal Code, 18 Code KF62 72, Annotated KF65 U5 72. 332, 550, 550. named Leo Murray Fresh Grown Preserves Geenbergs officers (all whom refer simply Greenberg), S. Corporation, Royal Crown Bottling Baltimore, Inc., William C. Franklin, president companies. guilty, nolo contendere, verdicts directed Franklin. participated writing similar written discussed hereafter. note 3, supra. view cases. At characterized follows charge first: '* * 11th December Sealfon common Greenbergs Company violate law.'

Classification Label: 0