Legal Document

468 U.S. 63 104 S.Ct. 2936 82 L.Ed.2d 53 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Esmail YERMIAN. No. 83-346. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 27, 1984. Decided June Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 provides that "[w]hoever, in any matter within jurisdiction department or agency knowingly and willfully . makes false, fictitious fraudulent statements shall be fined. ." Respondent was convicted Federal District violating on basis false he furnished his defense contractor employer connection with a Department Defense security questionnaire. At trial, respondent admitted having actual knowledge falsity statements, but requested jury instruction requiring Government to prove not only had also were made federal agency. The rejected this request instead, over respondent's objection, instructed must "knew should have known" information submitted Appeals reversed, holding erred failing give instruction. Held: Both plain language legislative history establish proof is required obtain conviction under statute. Pp. 68-75. (a) Any natural reading establishes terms "knowingly willfully" modify making "false, statements," predicate circumstance those Once clear, there no for defendant jurisdiction. 68-70. (b) supports That Congress, when it amended statute 1934 1948, did include requirement prohibited conduct undertaken specific intent deceive Government, jurisdiction, convincing evidence does require involvement. Nor support term modifies phrase "in [a federal] agency." 70-74. (c) Respondent's argument absent becomes "trap unwary," imposing criminal sanctions innocent conduct, sufficient overcome express statutory authorize amend manner unintended by Congress. 74-75. 708 F.2d 365, reversed. Carolyn Corwin, Washington. D.C., petitioner. Stephen J. Hillman, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 It crime make statement agency.1 To violation 1001, beyond reasonable doubt its falsity. This case presents question whether 2 * Esmail Yermian Central California three counts agency, 1001. convictions based supplied hired 1979 Gulton Industries, contractor. Because access classified material course employment, Security Clearance. end, Gulton's officer asked fill out "Worksheet For Preparation Personnel Questionnaire." 3 In response worksheet asking ever been charged law, failed disclose 1978 mail fraud, 1341. describing employment history, falsely stated employed two companies fact never him. typed these representations onto form entitled "Department reviewed document errors signed certification stating answers "true, complete, correct best [his] knowledge" understood "that misrepresentation may subject [him] prosecution section Criminal Code." App. 33. 4 After witnessing signature, mailed Industrial Clearance Office processing. investigators subsequently discovered Confronted discovery, acknowledged responded questions regarding record history. On 5 He explained so questionnaire would consistent similar fabrications application. sole at trial transmitted agency.2 6 Consistent defense, time they made, agency.3 instead known government agency."4 objection overruled, returned all indictment. 7 Ninth Circuit 365 (1983). read both agency]." court therefore concluded "as an essential element violation, knew Id., 371 (footnotes omitted). Government's "reasonably foreseeable" standard provided Court's instructions satisfied possibly associated 371-372. 8 decision conflicts decisions other Courts considered issue. v. Baker, 626 512 (CA5 1980); Lewis, 587 854 (CA6 1978) (per curiam); Stanford, 589 285 (CA7 1978), cert. denied, 440 983, 99 1794, 60 244 (1979). We granted certiorari resolve conflict, 464 991, 480, 78 678 (1983), now reverse. II 9 issue presented Congress intended statute's jurisdictional language, thereby jurisdiction.5 thus one interpretation. Accordingly, we turn first relevant provides: 10 "Whoever, representations, 11 States" requirement. Its primary purpose identify factor appropriate concern. Jurisdictional need contain same culpability as elements offense. Indeed, held "the existence confers mind actor perpetrates act statute." Feola, 420 671, 676-677, n. 9, 95 1255, 1259-1260, 43 541 (1975). Certainly case, clear intend appears separate from modified willfully." therefore, agency.6 contains suggesting additional intent, such jurisdiction," "with Government." face, requires willfully, unambiguously dispenses jurisdiction.7 contrary interpretation unpersuasive. B 12 prohibiting matters Act October 23, 1918 (1918 Act), ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015.8 pertinent part: 13 "[W]hoever, cheating swindling defrauding States, thereof, 14 Interpreting provision Cohn, 270 339, 46 251, 70 L.Ed. 616 (1926), cause "pecuniary property loss" prohibited. 346-347, S.Ct., 253. defrauding" "should construed being used merely sense money, secondary interfering obstructing lawful governmental functions deceitful means." 346, reasoned if prohibit intentional deceit broad then 37 Penal Code, which "by terms, extends broadly every conspiracy "to defraud purpose,' words limitation whatsoever." Ibid. 15 Concerned Act, narrowly construed, insufficient protect authorized agencies variety deceptive practices, undertook false-statements 1934.9 finally enacted, however, suggested evidenced conscious choice limit prohibition Government. 16 attempt unsuccessful. debates Houses, passed H.R.8046. bill 17 "[E]very person who statement, concerning pertaining department, establishment, administration, office, board, commission punished fine imprisonment ., both. Cong.Rec. 3724 (1934) (emphasis added).10 President Roosevelt, vetoed because offenses already covered while reducing penalties.11 hardly measure needed increase protection practices plaguing New Deal administration. 19 remedy President's concerns, quickly second broadened scope omitting specific-intent prior bill. enacted into law 20 "[W]hoever falsify conceal cover up trick, scheme, device fact, 18, 1934, 587, 48 996. 21 Noticeably lacking enactment If impose either requirement, replacing States,"12 inserting "knowing 1948 revision, involvement.13 22 Finally, appeared agency]" not. suggest adding prerequisite current extend terms. added solely reach interest. 23 By limited There reason, eliminated, necessary ensure application remained issues indication addition change meaning As observed Bramblett, 348 503, 75 504, L.Ed 594 (1955), "deleted purpose," inserted jurisdiction" "simply compensate deleted purpose—to indicate falsifications organs reached." 506, 507-508, 507. III 24 argues "wholly conduct." Whether fairly characterize deliberate lies (and manifest case) conduct," argue lacks power deliberately regardless actually Cf. U.S., 676, 1259, 9. precisely what has done here. unlikely event could unduly harsh result intentionally statute.14 IV 25 reverse contrary. 26 ordered. 27 REHNQUIST, whom BRENNAN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 28 common ground them. See Bryson 396 64, 68-70, 90 355, 358-359, 264 (1969). here States." concludes conclusively without involvement statements. I cannot agree. 29 nonetheless proceeds assumption some lesser prosecutions, declines decide is. Even agreed here, agree disposition reverses determining itself, remanding lower determine, proper. think our exercised construction, simply particular correctly But Court, remarkable display left-footedness, accomplishes neither result: beginning knows congressionally is, nor properly case. 30 "[a]fter 'seiz[ing] thing aid can derived,' Fisher, Cranch [6 U.S.] 358, 386 [2 304] (1805) (Marshall, C.J.), are left ambiguous Bass, 404 336, 347, 92 515, 522, 488 (1971). Notwithstanding majority's repeated, sparsely supported, assertions Congress' "convincing," "unambiguou[s]," ante, 69, 7, 73, believe provide "no more than guess intended." Ladner 358 169, 178, 79 209, 214, 199 (1958). canon construction "ambiguity ambit statutes resolved favor lenity," Rewis 401 808, 812, 91 1056, 1059, 493 (1971), applicable affirm Appeals' conclusion 31 statute, 32 fined $10,000 imprisoned five years, both" added). 33 majority begins analysis see Turkette, 452 576, 580, 101 2524, 2527, 69 246 (1981), my view, incorrectly unambiguous. 34 drawing conclusion, point matter" placed sentence later specifying conduct. "natural reading" Ante, 69-70. Although "there errorless test identifying recognizing 'plain' 'unambiguous' language" supra, reasoning amounts little pointing phrases proclaiming them clear. quite impossible tell modify, magic wand ipse dixit nothing ambiguity. 35 "neither grammatical punctuation indicates 'knowingly willfully' 'makes statements' broader 'in statements.' " 368 (CA9 1983) original). 36 introductory language. because, before revision statute—a housekeeping overhaul substantive changes, 508, 507, (1955)—the appear Before follows: ten both." 996 38 Turning attention, must, version again proclaim most reading," even end rather 6. seemed judges Fifth Circuits, me, reading, though certainly plausible one, compelled 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction 46.04 (4th ed. 1973 1984 Cum.Supp.). 39 similarly unclear, slightly supportive position position. kind expression explain otherwise rule lenity. points out, included "for thereof." Oct. 1918, 1015. All quoted directly Brief 10, rests entire absence 71-74. 41 Examination evolution reveals meager "a choice," 71, eliminate readily desire eliminate, "cheating language—language 253, relied construing apply causing pecuniary 42 Cohn expressly go protecting cheated own money property, interference obstruction means. specifically focused use word "defraud" swindling," given ordinary "fraudulent[ly] loss." restricted resulting became serious problem advent programs 1930's. Early Secretary Interior Ickes contacted Chairmen House Senate Judiciary Committees proposed bill, gap perceived present Code. H.R.Rep. 829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1934); 2858-2859 (1934). concerned outlawing, example, presentation documents shipment "hot oil," Public Works Administration transaction business S.Rep. 1202, 44 address Secretary's tried their hands drafting penalizing areas version, H.R.8046, passed, provided: 45 exceeding $5,000 imprisonment." Report accompanying H.R.8046 directed government. explicitly noted "rights accused protected committed Statements floor Houses during consideration bills legislators legislation deter individuals "hovering like obscene harpies, foul buzzards" intending 2858 id., 3724. 47 spite noble goals colorful metaphors carried it, Roosevelt seems obvious reason. veto message pointed drafted superfluous—it very specified penalties 6778-6779. Indeed comparing too depend defraud, subjected new narrowing Cohn—the created Act. Thus, problems enhanced omitted limiting course, "intent 12452 (1934), and, purposes assumed form, except phraseology changes previously discussed. Of clearer rewriting deceive" defraud" 13. still remains nowhere admittedly sparse postveto alter part since 1918. Gilliland, 312 86, 94, 61 518, 523, 85 598 (1941), amendment "omi[t] deemed former cases where loss caused" (footnote me highly that, much hint explanation, changed perpetration criminalize casual long turned unbeknownst maker, function. latter substantially reach, privately neighbor uses work 49 "[i]t unprecedented enact [such] stringent legislation," 709, 1276, (1975) (Stewart, J., dissenting). subscribe way "make surprisingly range unremarkable law," Williams 458 279, 286, 102 3088, 3093, 73 767 (1982), "fails congressional awareness claimed scope." 290, 290. hold lenity 50 Seemingly aware sweep today's interpretation, apparently state respect 68-69, 5. Instead, suggests well prosecutions order prevent becoming unwary." 75, 14. judge 51 disregarded clearest, albeit conclusive, invited courts improvise state-of-mind almost thin air, avoid unfairness today. will engender confusion And, unfortunately, tells us absolutely about received proper 52 something "actual "reasonable foreseeability," standard. 68, 5, 14, embraced Governments' petition review Pet. Cert. I. Apparently believes filed cross-petition wished raise propriety elementary proposition "cross-petition enable party advance ground, raised below, judgment favor." R. Stern & E. Gressman, Practice 478 (5th 1978); Dayton Board Education Brinkman, 433 406, 419, 97 2766, 2775, 851 (1977). Here, alternative "recklessness" standard, accepted, mandates affirmance below trial. unwilling minimum remand issue, Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475-476, 6, 1153, 1156-1157 491 (1970) (dictum), leaving limbo. respectfully dissent. full: falsifies, conceals covers writing knowing entry, maintained despite reference Defense, captioned "Defense Department." contained Office," "secret" material, informed signature grant "permission copies medical institutional records." 29, 32. Nevertheless, testified carefully signing noticed Defense" page printed above block. jury: "Unless you find, doubt, acquit." Defendant's Proposed Instruction 49. "Three proved offense indictment: "FIRST: used, caused relation charged; "SECOND: acts particular, alleged; "THIRD: agency; "FOURTH: 25. objected reasonably foreseeable. infra. structure found predecessor equally description fined." applies facts occasion principle urged McElroy 455 642, 658, 1332, 1341, 71 522 (1982); 509-510, (1955) (although "criminal strictly mean narrowest possible complete disregard legislature"). earliest claims military personnel "any civil service Mar. 2, 1863, 696. extended 1873 "every person"—not personnel—who claim agent States. Dec. 1, 1873, approved 22, 1874. 1908 1909, changed, redesignated 35. May 30, 1908, 555; 4, 1088. revised initially (S.2686), punished. Cong.Rec., 2858-2859. withdrew 5746. "This [H.R.8046], effect, seeks punish who, representation "These existing severe punishment [The Act] persons make[s] representation. "The objectionable reduce certain frauds against Godwin, 566 975, 976 ("Intent synonymous. Deceive mislead. Defraud deprive right, interest deceit"). Accord, Lichenstein, 610 1272 (CA5), 447 907, 100 2991, 64 856 (1980). dissent eliminated States," really meant "defraud," retain post, 81-82. intention replaced "deceive" retained express-intent do so, rewrite intend. context unwary" particularly misplaced. worth noting instructed, prosecution, object reasonable-foreseeability instruction, unnecessary erroneously phrase. Moreover, jury's finding foreseeable defendant, combined precludes possibility imposed

Classification Label: 0