Legal Document

348 U.S. 84 75 Supreme Court Reporter 158 99 L.Ed. 101 William Judge OPPER, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. Number 49. Argued Oct. 22, 1954. Decided Dec. 6, Mr.Frederick Bernays Wiener, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr.John Federal KF105 F3 Davis, respondent. Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner seeks review a conviction under charges that he violated 18 United States Code KF62 § 281, Annotated KF65 U5 section which punishes employees who receive outside compensation any services to be rendered in matter before federal department or agency is party. was not himself an employee but charged with inducing accept such through conspiring him purpose. Such inducement violates §§ 2 2, 281. The sections are set out margin.1 Count indictment charged, substance, on about October 1, 1950, Hollifield, States, agreed $1,750 from petitioner by Hollifield regard purchase requests had direct interest. consisted Hollifield's recommending approval and procurement Department Air Force certain types sun goggles ski were used survival kits. 4 receipt $200 August 5, 1951. Each these two counts aided, abetted, induced procured unlawfully compensation. 3 fifth count conspiracy between until September 26, 1951, perform unlawful acts alleged. Convictions other reversed. tried jointly after petitioner's motion severance denied. jury found guilty all sentence duly imposed. On appeal Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed as above now us. 211 Reporter, 2nd Series 719. 5 Certiorari granted, 347 1010, 74 867, because asserted variance conflict legal conclusion reached this case—that extrajudicial, exculpatory statement accused, subsequent alleged crime, needs no corroboration—and cases contrary.2 This Court, granting certiorari, limited three issues raised considered important administration criminal law upon there appeared some divergence among Courts Appeals.3 6 employed at Aero Medical Laboratory Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. His job entailed, things, preparing specifications kits determining whether goods submitted those kits, including goggles, complied specifications. resided Chicago subcontractor various projects equipping supplied prime contractor them use rejected January 23, 'marked deviations' applicable A short time thereafter arranged conference project engineer made rejection. At accompanied petitioner, strongly urged acceptance goggles. It concluded should prepare written memorandum his reasons acceptance. dated 25, prepared.4 Thereafter reconsideration granted February 3, recommended. 7 Government further established records April 13, long-distance call residence Dayton Chicago; 16, cashed check $1,000, 1951; round-trip airline ticket issued name 14, flights return. 8 evidence thus far summarized independent proof. remainder Government's case depended Bureau Investigation oral statements FBI several interviews. 9 substance first met seen fifteen times Field discussed rejection Hollifield. He stated pursuant earlier phone call, came office Saturday, handed $1,000 taken cash home replenished Monday, cashing amount. also admitted giving another weeks later. 10 In both insisted never requested anything goggles; money strictly loan based request needed mortgage home; security given loan; agreement interest; personal knowledge owned not; none been repaid. consistently specifically denied guilt offense charged. 11 makes claim extrajudicial voluntary. fact record discloses cooperative furnishing information ample opportunity consult counsel reference interviews made. Petitioner's contention date so analogous confession same rules confessions must applied if cannot stand. 12 First. where admissions point testimony witnesses than accused accepted without corroboration facts stated. That derives position essential prove crime its elements rule applied. 13 our concept justice finds man proven has led state courts generally refuse concerning trial case. Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), 2071. See Warszower versus 312 342, 345, note 61 603. We have gone direction common England. There hesitant lay down uncorroborated may send prison death.5 country doubt persists zeal agencies prosecution protect peace, self-interest accomplice, maliciousness enemy aberration weakness strain suspicion tinge warp confession. Admissions, retold trial, much like hearsay, is, pending trial. They neither compulsion oath nor test cross-examination.6 competent admission against 14 detailed establish acquaintance employee, motive purpose agree prohibited services. More importantly they around secure employee's contract interested. While verbal guilt, charge indeed element illegal promise pay. 15 348, 603, 606, 607, we held although only proof making false contrary prior sufficient convict true, would take jury. said 'contain inherent weaknesses fact.' think accused's character required. Greenleaf, (16th 216; Smith 147, 194. 16 need extends beyond complete conscious guilt—a strict confession.7 Facts immaterial innocence discussion. But court show here payment money, necessary supplement otherwise inadequate basis verdict conviction, stand differently. possibilities error confessions. They, too, corroborated. Wilson 162 613, 621, 895, 899, 40 1090 17 Government, however, requirement apply statements, explain actions rather admit guilt. thought exclupatory do behind pressure coercion escaping consequences crime. accords Professor Wigmore's view. 7, supra. exculpatory. summary, declaring declining exception.8 conclude differ incriminating facts. Given when suspicion, become questionable just accused. extent statements. Second. next consider judgment conviction. divergence. One line follows Daeche Cir., 250 566, corroborative it touches corpus delicti 'in sense injury whose occurrence directed', page 571, type goes fortify truthfulnes confession.9 Some seem require latter half rule; corroborating circumstances adequate truth tends embraced necessity touch all, though, course, plus crime.10 19 Other decisions tend follow enunciated Forte 68 App.D.C. 111, 94 236, 240, 244, 127 American Law Reports 1120, consist substantial evidence, whole delicti.11 20 Whether differences quantum principle expression difficult determine. own leads patent individualization opinions. However, better sufficient, delicti. necessary, therefore, introduce trustworthiness statement. Thus, serves dual function. make reliable, while establishing independently offense. supports sufficiently justify inference their truth. Those besides must, find reasonable doubt. 21 Turning instant case, clear directly truthfulness paid government money.12 tending Rather one offense—payment money. therefore delicti—rendering employee—entirely evidence.13 within seems constitute free connection decide feel finding supported evidence. 22 Third. final complaint arises conspirators jointly. feels might confused improperly codefendant reaching general possibility confusion, points nothing prejudicial resulting joint below reversed lack statments emphasized bolster remaining counts. 23 sound discretion judge defendants together severally indicate abuse overruled. repeated admonitions appropriate incriminatory petitioner.14 To say amounts more unfounded speculation jurors disregarded instructions arriving verdict. Our theory relies ability instructions. reversal confusion injustice arising contains could guilty. affirmed. 24 Affirmed. 25 FRANKFURTER concurs result. 26 DOUGLAS, believing states corroboration, reverse below. 281: 'Whoever, being * (an) officer thereof, indirectly receives agrees receive, rendered, either another, relation proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, party interested, department, agency, martial, officer, civil, military, naval commission, shall fined $10,000 imprisoned years, both; incapable holding honor, trust, profit States.' Id., 2: '(a) Whoever commits aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces procures punishable principal.' 85 876; Calderon 207 377; Pines 123 825; Gulotta 113 683. questions certiorari are: "3. Whether, enforcement officers crimes, treated that, absence inadmissible. "4. can sustained apart "5. convicting jury, sustaining below, admitted, him, co-defendant which, law, him." 867. memorandum, signed bore initials embodied orally conference. person convicted Halsbury's Laws England (2d ed.) 291, Page 207; 268, 183, g; & N Immigration Nationality Decisions Phillipps Arnold, (5th Am. 441. manslaughter cautiously Regina Burton, Dearsly's Crown Cases (1852—1856) 282. Proof Halsbury, supra, 768; R. Davidson, Cr.App.R. 21. Institute Model Evidence, adopted May 15, 1942, Foreword, Edmund M. Morgan, 36, Rule 501; 1048. 'A acknowledgement express words, part it.' Wigmore excludes statements: 'Exculpatory denying ought plain enough, terms meaning spirit obeyed.' Also, 'acknowledgments subordinate colorless actual guilt.' 'An acknowledgment fact, involving or, confession; supposed ground untrustorthiness strong impels expose declare price purchasing immunity present pain punishment; thus, hypothesis, quality acknowledged. Confessions species admissions; scope peculiar affecting confessions.' 821. Bram 168 532, 42 568, field admissions, coercion, exculpation. 562, E.g., Jordan 60 4; Kertess, 139 923; Forlini 631, 634. Accord, Williams, 28 Fed.Cas. Pages 636, 644, 16,707, Cliff. 5; Pearlman 460; Wynkoop 799; Bolland 238 529, 530. Ercoli 76 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 131 354, 355, 356, 357, following reaffirming Forte, merely support insufficient, embrace touching each main constituent parts Also rule, e.g., Ryan 864; Fenwick, 177 488. (1) (2) (3) tickets flight accomplished introduction substantially uncontroverted efforts gaining previously Rules Criminal Procedure, U.S.C.A.; Ball, 163 662, 672, 1192, 1195, 41 300; Waldeck 243; Olmstead 842, 53 1472; Metcalf 195 213, 217.

Classification Label: 0