Legal Document

431 U.S. 174 97 Supreme Court Reporter 1823 52 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 231 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Rose WONG. Number 74-635. Argued Dec. 6, 1976. Decided May 23, 1977. Syllabus A witness who, while under investigation for possible criminal activity, is called to testify before a grand jury and later indicted perjury in the testimony given jury, not entitled suppression of false on ground that no effective warning Fifth Amendment privilege remain silent had been given. Pp. 177-180. (a) The testimonial does condone perjury, which justified by even predicament being forced choose between incriminatory truth falsehood, as opposed refusal answer. versus Knox, 396 77, 90 363, 24 275; Mandujano, 425 564, 96 1768, 48 212. 178-179. (b) Nor do due process requirements require suppression, since where searching questions are made uninformed silence, "(o)ur legal system provides methods challenging Government's right ask lying one them." Bryson States, 64, 72, 355, 360, 264. 179-180. 553 Federal Reporter, 2nd 576, reversed remanded. William KF105 F3 Sheehan, III, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Allan Brotsky, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide whether who committed have suppressed was given.1 2 (1) 3 Rose Wong, respondent, came from China early childhood. She educated public schools she completed eight grades elementary education. Because her husband speak English, respondent generally speaks native tongue household. 4 In September 1973 subpoenaed federal Northern District California. investigating illegal gambling obstruction state local law enforcement Francisco. At time appearance, Government received reports paid bribes two undercover Francisco police officers agreed make future payments them. Before any interrogation began, advised privilege;2 then denied having money or gifts discussed activities with It undisputed this false. 5 (2) 6 Respondent violation 18 Code KF62 § 1623. moved dismiss indictment that, limited command understood answer incriminating questions. hearing, defense counsel an interpreter language specialists expert witnesses persuaded Judge comprehended prosecutor's explanation privilege;3 court accepted respondent's thought required all Based upon informal oral findings effect, ordered evidence perjury. 7 Accepting Court's finding warning, Appeals held "the procedure employed government fraught danger . placing (respondent), position either perjuring herself." 578 (CA9 1974). Absent warnings silent, concluded, suspected involvement will "not understand (will) be compelled answering subject himself liability." Ibid. Appeals' view, ineffectiveness meant unfairness remained undissipated, requires suppressed." Id., at 579. 8 Following our decision 212 (1976), we certiorari. 426 905, 2224, L.Ed. 829 (1975). now reverse. 9 (3) 10 Under challenge, unwarned privilege. Resting given, contends both testimony. As claim privilege, argues without warnings, effect questions, choice confined herself oath. From premise, such testimony, if knowingly false, inadmissible against obtained constitutional With respect claim, contends, held,4 absent placed dilemma engaging self-incrimination situation so inherently unfair perjured reject contentions. 11 holding Mandujano makes clear, indeed recognized, grants risking contempt, but it "does endow person testifies license commit perjury." Glickstein 222 139, 142, 32 71, 73, 56 128 (1911). failure provide addition oath tell truth, call different result. contention inform availability thus eliminate claimed Cf. Garner 424 648, 657-658, 1178, 1183-1184, 47 370 (1976). However, 275 (1969), refusing answer, justify case, taxpayer charged filing information wagering tax return. offense, commanded return though requirement, some circumstances, crime supply requested Government.5 To deliberate falsehood contained his return, like here, argued statements were voluntarily, laws therefore violated Amendment. rejected contention. Although recognized returns injected "element pressure into Knox's he filed forms," id., 82, S.Ct., 366, falsely took "a course gave him take." 12 case stands better than Knox; position, fact, weaker give inculpatory answers, unlike would constituted crime. follows protect equally applicable case. 13 (4) 14 also relies prospective defendant silence appearance fundamentally violate process. conduct although good faith, thwarted adversary model justice subsequent based falsity sworn statement.6 disagree. 15 First, "unfairness" urged present taxpayer's yet there found infirmity conviction making returns. Second, accepting, arguendo, argument posed procedures here,7 nevertheless permissible alternative. perceived act calling jury8 rather effectively Thus, core argument, holding, reality relates protection values served 16 Finally, characterize these proceedings "unfair" virtue inadequate essentially say acted unfairly oppressively asking But, has consistently held, way objecting "Our (footnote omitted.) 264 (1969); U.S., 577, 585, 1777, 1781 (Brennan, J., concurring judgment); 609, 1792 (Stewart, judgment). Indeed, could, pain sanctions, compel its citizen liberty falsely. supra, 82-83, 366-367. If answers question, must truthful. 17 judgment reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. Reversed prosecutors admissible trial. warned mandated perjurious provided full Miranda warnings. Court, three separate opinions expressed varying reasons, participating Justices improperly suppressed. prosecutor following warnings: "You need question you feel may incriminate you. (Y)ou (have) refuse might (I)f used prosecution, fact should prosecute You consult attorney prior here today. cannot afford attorney, see afforded represent prosecution Laws." Tr. 52-53. found, however, consequences giving asked her. issue regarding consequences, any, absence factor addressed Appeals. suppression. held: "(T)he compulsion (or, answers), gives testimony." 577. Knox decisions Marchetti 390 39, 88 697, 19 889 (1968), Grosso 62, 709, 906 (1968). did suggest why, assuming occurred, constitutionally required. 594-598, 1785-1787, There prohibition summoning potential defendants jury. Dionisio, 410 1, n. 8, 93 764, 35 67 (1973); 584 9, 594, 1780, 1785 historic proceedings, Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 1110 (1892), attests recognition potentially frequently jury; very purpose inquiry ferret out conduct, sometimes guilty persons prime sources information.

Classification Label: 0