Legal Document

57 United States Supreme Court Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 854 98 Reporter 2864 438 U.S. 422 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY et al. Number 76-1560. Argued March 1, 1978. Decided June 29, Syllabus Several major gypsum board manufacturers and various of their officials were indicted for violations § 1 the Sherman Act by allegedly engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy. One types actions taken formulating effectuating conspiracy was interseller price verification, i. e., practice telephoning competing manufacturer to determine being currently offered on specific customer. After some defendants pleaded nolo contendere sentenced, remaining convicted after trial 19 weeks. The Government's case focused price-verification charge, which defended ground that price-information exchanges enable them take advantage meeting-competition defense contained 2(b) Clayton Act, as amended Robinson-Patman (which permits seller rebut prima facie price-discrimination charge showing lower purchaser made good faith meet an equally low competitor). On verification issue, judge charged jury if found have been undertaken comply with alone would not suffice establish illegal agreement, but effect fix prices, then parties be presumed, matter law, intended result. further since only single alleged, liability could predicated knowing involvement each defendant, considered individually, having refused defendants' requested directing what kind any, existed defendant before any member With respect evidence withdrawal from conspiracy, instructed had established either affirmative notice every other or disclosure enterprise law enforcement officials. instruction vigorous competition during period question also abandonment all testimony presented, jurors sequestered deliberation, apparently disagreement among arose. approximately seven days deliberations, foreman informed he wanted discuss jury's condition, this resulted, parties' consent, ex parte meeting between foreman. Most discussion at involved jurors' deteriorating health referred deadlock; there followed exchange strongly suggesting may carried away impression verdict "one way other." rendered its guilty following morning. Appeals reversed convictions grounds, holding, inter alia, concessions competitors sole purpose taking constitutes "controlling circumstance" precluding under thus allowing ignore alleged misconduct sustained. Held : 1. A defendant's state mind intent is element criminal antitrust offense must inferences drawn therefrom cannot trier fact through reliance legal presumption wrongful proof prices. Since judge's issue prohibited effect, it improper. Pp. 434-446. (a) construed mandating regime strict-liability crimes; rather offenses defined therein are including element. 436-443. (b) Action knowledge probable consequences requisite anticompetitive effects can sufficient predicate finding laws. Where carefully planned calculated conduct scrutinized context prosecution, perpetrator's anticipated intent. 443-446. 2. good-faith belief, than absolute certainty, concession competitor suffices invoke defense; information, even when putatively compliance, remain subject close scrutiny Act. Therefore, erred treating limited exception liability. 447-459. 3. improper, justified reversing solely because risk believed insisting dispositive verdict. Such pregnant possibilities error, difficult contain, much less anticipate, direction conversation will such meeting, occasion leads communication whole panel one juror inevitably risks innocent misstatements misinterpretations despite undisputed participants, absence counsel aggravates problems serve conduit panel. Here allowed drift into supplemental relating obligation reach verdict, denied chance correct whatever mistaken might meeting. 459-462. 4. concerni g participation although perhaps completely clear, sufficient, his erroneous, consideration two circumscribed arguably impractical methods demonstrating withdrawal, permitting acts inconsistent object communicated manner reasonably coconspirators. 462-465. 550 Federal Reporter, 2nd 115, affirmed. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D. C., petitioner. W. Donald McSweeney, Chicago, Ill., Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., Fred Bartlit, Jr., respondents. [Amicus Curiae Information page 425 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. This presents questions: whether offense; information purposes compliance exempt scrutiny; (c) adequacy instructions membership conspiracy; (d) propriety jury. 2 * Gypsum board, laminated type wall-board composed paper, vinyl, specially treated coverings over core, has last 30 years substantially replaced wet plaster primary component interior walls ceilings residential commercial construction. product essentially fungible; differences price, credit terms, delivery services largely dictate purchasers' choice suppliers. Overall demand, however, governed level construction activity marginally affected fluctuations. 3 industry highly concentrated, number producers ranging 9 15 1960-1973. eight largest companies accounted 94% national sales "single plant producers"1 accounting 6%. large single-plant members Association 1930 served trade association manufacturers. 4 Beginning 1966, Department, well Trade Commission, became investigations possible industry. In 1971, grand empaneled investigation continued additional 28 months. late 1973, indictment filed District Western Pennsylvania charging six corporate ch. 647, 26 Statutes-at-Large 209, amended, Code KF62 1.2 5 engaged combination "[b]eginning sometime prior 1960 continuing thereafter least until 1973," App. 34, restraint interstate commerce manufacture sale board. consisted of: 6 "[A] agreement understanding concern action co-conspirators raise, fix, maintain stabilize prices board; terms conditions thereof; adopt uniform packaging handling board." Ibid. 7 proceeded specify 13 conspirators "[i]n effectuating" most relevant which, our purposes, specification (h) 8 "telephoned otherwise contacted another current future published market standard ascertain deviations therefrom." bill particulars provided details about nature competitive role played policing adherence agreements charged. B 10 first skirmish protracted litigation motion dismissal alleging due process rights unreasonable preindictment delay. Court, holding five-day evidentiary hearing motion, concluded "no delay part Government," 383 F.Supp. 462, 470 (WD Pa. 1974), "prejudiced extraordinary degree whatsoever chain events leading indictment." dismiss indictment. Thereafter nine entered pleas sentenced.3 commenced March, 3, 1975, lasted 11 focus verification—that is, producer Government contended these defendants, stabilizing agreed-upon increases, frequent basis 1973. Defendants disputed both scope duration activities, maintained those did occur complying Act4 preventing customer fraud. These view, brought communications within liability—at extreme, precluding, determining guilt minimum, making threshold factual question. 12 given deemed "in effort Act," standing agreement. paragraphs immediately following, irrelevant maintain, closed observation: "The presumes person intends necessary natural acts. pricing result." 14 aspects dealing burden linking particular kinds properly consider more withdrawn abandoned dispute counsel. former, proper specificity charge. "what understanding, defendant" unwilling give precise instead emphasized several points regarding find, precondition liability, participant conspiracy.5 sought stating explicitly covered indicating defendants. Substantial presented course trial. again accept applicable substituted specifying argue theory unwillingness refer Contract 16 retired deliberate early evening Tuesday, July 8, 1975. Supplemental response questions Wednesday Thursday, hours deliberation shortened Friday court exhausted feeling well. Saturday, responding requests jury, judge, sua sponte, open court, used approved Appeals6 remind continue deliberations. Essentially same Sunday, received note detailing inability unanimous 17 Monday, yet time wished "discuss condition Jury" "seek guidance" suggested confer privately transcript meting kept impounded. indicated suggestion rejected simply deny foreman's request counsel, stated serious physical no without calling instructing present.7 discussion, agreed, albeit somewhat reluctantly, proposed 18 concerned almost five months intensive deliberations existence personality conflicts stressed twice belief unable eliminate disagreements existed. while said, Near colloquy took place: "THE COURT. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions like ask you told me. That say. 20 "MR. RUSSELL. appreciate it. It situation don't know how help get after. 21 Oh, am anything. 22 You other. 23 Which goes doesn't make difference me."8 24 Shortly thereafter, returned room continued. abbreviated fashion, transpired foreman, continue.9 Defense asked see camera moved mistrial apparent deadlock. denied,10 Friday, reconsider motions. morning, verdicts against Defendant 25 Third Circuit convictions. 115 (1977). rejection claim delay, divided disposition issues. Two judges agreed resulting out violation regardless respondents' charges. Instead, they regarded purpose, certain met,11 constituting versus Container Corp., 393 333, 89 510, 526 (1969), excuse constitute violation. demonstrate infirm, should "improperly induced" reaching 27 dissent, sustained He consistent notion required circumstances identified majority. Neither infirmities general instructions, afforded reversal, disagreed characterization coercing We granted certiorari, 434 815, 52, 54 71 (1977), we affirm. II 29 turn elements Although ambiguity, seems clear crucial offense. raising, fixing, maintaining, so affect They charged, point gives rise present concern, "if 1722. (Emphasis added.) characterizes entirely "this Court's long-standing rule sellers offering violates Section prices," Reply Brief relies primarily decision supra, civil case, support position. See American Column Lumber company States, 257 377, 42 114, 66 L.Ed. 284 (1921); Linseed Oil Co., 262 371, 43 607, 67 1035 (1923); Maple Flooring Mfg. Assn. 268 563, 45 578, 69 1093 (1925); Cement Mfrs. Protective 588, 586, 1104 (1925). court's interpreted, Appeals, direct convict "effects alone" test, circumstances, controlling circumstance xcusing hence agree more, conviction do base conclusion conflict requirements Acts.12 Rather, hold Cf. Morissette 342 246, 274-275, 72 240, 255, 96 288 (1952). challenged instruction, read it, disapproved. construe offenses.13 31 start familiar proposition "[t]he mens rea of, to, principles Anglo-American jurisprudence." Dennis 341 494, 500, 857, 862, 95 1137 (1951). Freed, 401 601, 613, 91 1112, 1120, 356 (1971) (BRENNAN, J., concurring judgment); Balint, 258 250, 251-253, 301, 302, 604 (1922). much-cited passage U.S., 250-251, S.Ct., 243, Jackson speaking observed: 32 contention injury amount crime inflicted intention provincial transient notion. universal persistent mature systems freedom human consequent ability duty normal individual choose evil. relation mental punishment harmful act instinctive child's exculpatory 'But didn't mean to,' rational tardy unfinished substitution deterrence reformation place retaliation vengeance motivation public prosecution. Unqualified acceptance doctrine English common Eighteenth Century Blackstone's sweeping statement 'vicious will.' " (Footnote omitted.) 33 "vicious will" sophisticated colorful characterizations criminality, ALI, Model Penal 2.02 (Prop. Off. Draft 1962), generally remains indispensable true involving 34 keeping common-law tradition injunction "ambiguity concerning ambit statutes resolved favor lenity," Rewis 808, 812, 1056, 1059, 493 (1971), occasions state-of-mind statutory definition provide. See, e. g., supra. Lambert California, 355 225, 78 228 (1957). Indeed, fairly establishing, regard crimes origin interpretative required. "[M]ere omission . [in statute] eliminating denounced"; Congress presumed legislated background traditional concepts render critical factor, "absence contrary [will] satisfaction widely accepted definitions, departure them." 263, 250. 35 While unknown invariably offend constitutional requirements, Shevlin-Carpenter Minnesota, 218 57, 663, 930 (1910), created recognized offenses, supra; Behrman, 280, 303, 619 (1922); Dotterweich, 320 277, 64 134, 88 48 (1943); attest disfavored status. Code, Comment 2.05, Page 140 (Tent. 4, 1955); LaFave Atlantic Scott, Criminal Law 222-223 (1972). Certainly far simple appropriate phrase justify dispensing requirement. inhospitable attitude non-mens reinforced array considerations arguing crimes. 36 unlike statutes, does not, categorical precisely identify proscribes.14 Both remedies sanctions authorized generalized definitions proscribed—restraints monopolization—without reference mention mind. Nor judicial elaboration always yielded definitive rules statute omits; open-ended fact-specific standards "rule reason" applied broad classes falling purview Act's provisions. Standard 221 60, 502, 515, 55 (1911); Topco Associates, 405 596, 92 1126, 1133, 515 (1972); Continental T. V., Incorporated GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 36, 49, 97 2549, 2562, 53 568 Simply put, interpreted statute; "generality adaptability comparable desirable provisions." Appalachian Coals, 344, 359-360, 471, 473-474, 77 825 (1933). Pacific KF135 P2 Areeda Turner, Antitrust 310 (1978). 37 Nash 229 373, 376-378, 780, 781-782, 1232 (1913), held indeterminancy fatal objection enforcement, nevertheless, factor particularly enforcing accommodating remedial sanctions. 1955 Report Attorney General's National Committee Study Laws provisions reserved where relatively egregious: 38 perhaps, couched language general. Modern business patterns moreover complex imprecisely predictable. Thus, today's businessman tell advance projected run afoul strictures. hazard mind, believe facts reveal flagrant plain unreasonably restrain trade." committee 349 (1955). 39 Division Department similar, though slightly moderate, position guidelines issued contemporaneously Committee: 40 "In general, prosecuted criminally: (1) fixing; (2) monopolize; (3) easily category cases described use predatory practices (boycotts example) accomplish objective (4) previously adjudged been, violating laws warrant second feels free seek prospective similar suit persons."15 Id., 350. 41 now us, recommendations promulgated highlight basic concerns manifested requirement suggest salient context. Close attention regulated buttresses conclusion. exceptions per se unquestionably effects, see, Socony-Vacuum 150, 60 811, 84 1129 (1940), behavior proscribed often distinguish gray zone socially acceptable economically justifiable conduct. case—the competitors—is illustrative regard.16 imposition official, corporation directly, determined violate bec inquiring undertaken, holds distinct possibility overdeterrence; salutary procompetitive lying borderline impermissible shunned businessmen who chose excessively cautious face uncertainty exposure error judgment.17 (1978); R. Bork, Paradox Kadish, Some Observations Use Sanctions Enforcing Economic Regulations, U.Chi.L.Rev. 423, 441-442 (1963). Further, square functions law. Hart, Aims Law, Contemp.Prob. 401, 422-425 (1958); 1955). used, punish conscious wrongdoing odds proscriptions, regulate undertaken. imputed regulatory choosing employ sanctions, (1922), availability range nonpenal alternatives negates imputation instant context.18 Baker, To Indict Not Indict: Prosecutorial Discretion Enforcement, 63 Cornell L.Rev. For reasons, conclude element.19 44 Having violation, task treat practical requirement.20 As noted, provides minimal assistance appropriate, sparse legislative history similarly unhelpful. therefore sources understandings doing, try avoid "the variety, disparity confusion" "requisite elusive element" offenses. 252, 244. ALI source guidance upon relied illuminate type. Leary 395 6, 46 n. 93, 1532, 1553 (1969); Turner 396 398, 416 90 642, 652 610 (1970). Recognizing "mens unitary concept," 1120 judgment), enumerates four levels intent—purpose, knowledge, recklessness, neglig nce. decisions focus, recklessness negligence place. Our requires, addition demonstration "conscious object" producing shown likely follow. formulations narrow one, 2.02, 125 1955), laws.21 fortify traditionally viewed bifurcated concept embracing awareness. 47 "[I]t (or omits act) result omission) quite different circumstances: consciously desires result, likelihood happening conduct; knows practically follow conduct, desire 196 G. Williams, Law: General Part §§ 16, (2d ed. 1961); Cook, Intention, Motive Yale L.J. 645, 653-658 (1917); Perkins, Rationale Mens Rea, 52 Harv.L.Rev. 905, 910-911 (1939). Generally distinction important "there reason imposing desired merely knew certainty results." 197. circumstance, behaving prohibits, fitting punishment. Working Papers Commission Reform 124 49 Nothing analysis persuades us here. charges normally full results weighing costs, benefits, risks. bring fruition seem, context, unnecessarily cumulative unduly burdensome. 50 When standard, "A conclusive [of intent] overthrow effectively ingredient offense." Morissette, 275, 256. effect; followed, impact inference probability consequence acted, accepting rejecting inference. instruct infer ultimately left alone. invaded factfinding function.22 III 51 require leaves unresolved focused, question.23 (1925), protect cement fraudulent contractors.24 Over later, 335, 511, Douglas characterized terms: "While here, [45 1104,] customers, absent viz., manufacturers, themselves delivering contractors needed job receiving exchanged means protecting inducements deliver job." Corporation implied necessarily special exact remained undefined. courts controlling-circumstance encompassing Belliston Texaco, 455 175, 181-182 (CA10 1972); Wall Products 326 295, 312-315 (N.D.Cal.1971).25 adopted tack—albeit limitations26 —finding step perceived proscriptions claimed necessity perfect defense. challenges res lution grounds: first, second, that, event, prohibitions tempered mandated Appeals' case. accommodation Acts, find unnecessary address going so-called exception. 56 2(a) 13(a) (1976 ed.), embodies prohibition discrimination buyers consequence. bar incorporated proviso burden-of-proof set 2(b): "Provided, nothing herein shall prevent rebutting furnishing facilities purchasers competitor, furnished competitor." 58 tempering highlighted FTC, 340 231, 239 There potential tension rationales underlying Acts partial construing provide discrimination. 59 "We need reconcile, entirety, economic underlies Acts. enough say abolish radically curtail substantial right selfdefense raid competitor. example, temptingly him seller's competitors, essential, survival, lose seller, 2(b), retain realistically customer, changing customers." 249-250, 249. FTC E. Staley 324 746, 65 971, 1338 (1945), still complete explanation order satisfy defense: 61 "Section discriminations met competitor's price. But competitor's. requires knowingly discriminated show lead reasonable prudent granting 759-760, 7. 62 Application led out. record revealed based reports salesmen, brokers, efforts "to investigate verify" character reliability informants. 758, 976. Similarly, Corn 726, 961, 1320 decided day, said witnesses personal transactions, statements witness's assumption competition." 741, 968. Staley's "investigate coupled Products' "personal transactions" discounts Gray Shell 469 742, 746-747 (CA9 F.2d, 181-182; Webster Sinclair Refining 338 248, 251-252 (SD Ala.1971); F.Supp., 312-315; Di-Wall, Fibreboard Commerce Clearing House 1970 Cases ¶ 73,155 (ND Cal.1970). none called directly actually 2(b)'s standard; instead, obliquely form alternative corroborating reduction exhausted, permissible exhausted.27 critically perceptively analyzed very recognized; cover few situations veracity buyer seeking matching discount legitimately doubt, corroboration unavailable Despite circumscribe constrained recognize, unacceptable. casual uncorroborated representatives noted earlier, faith, gloss indicates discussions aware, ever imposed requirement.28 Rowe, Pricing A.B.A. 98, 100-102 (1971); Bar Developments 145 241 (1975). contrary, successfully invoked erseller numerous occasions, International Air Industries, Excelsior 517 714, 725-726 (CA5 1975); Cadigan 492 1974); Jones Borden 430 568, 572-574 1970); Dairy 517, 523 (CA7 1968). And Kroger 1372, 1376-1377 (CA6 1971), aff'g Beatrice Foods 76 F.T.C. 719 undercut technically fallen outside "meet beat" strictures indicate, observed, lies core defense, faith. "is flexible pragmatic, technical doctrinaire, concept. Rigid inflexible absolutes especially inappropriate abstract theories remote conjectures, govern interpretation application." Baking 2071, 2163 problem untruthful view call approach benchmark evaluated, satisfied short vague, doubts adversary—the buyer.29 Given inquiry, predict factors appraising offer circumstances. Certainly, cf. 572-573; threatened termination purchases met, 726; 386, regard. Efforts corroborate reported documentary reasonableness available data probative past experience question.30 reasons doubt accuracy ways. Thus unanswered buyer's representations made.31 proposition, resort checking solution plight, careful examination reveals practice. 68 verification—if isolated infrequent provision reciprocity cooperation putative function unreliable offers. Price oligopolists yield advantages secrecy maintained; publicly known, initiator lost process. KF105 F3 Scherer, Industrial Market Structure Performance 208-209, 449 (1970); Areeda, Analysis 230-231 Note, Meeting Competition Under 1476, 1480-1481 337, 512. offers winning unlikely freely inform promptly matched diffused. appear great incentive misrepresent size one-shot promise shoring up buyers' representations. variety i terseller pursuant tacit express, providing information. little sense, guarantee participants opportunity match secret 2(b). participating information-exchange arrangement would, therefore, deviating prevailing 336-337, Regardless stabilization 449; Liability Exchange Information—What Happened Va.L.Rev. 639, 666 Instead facilitating main oligopolistic industries 70 Especially industry, carries added development concerted arrangements lie prohibitions. Justice's 1977 growing former Assistant Kauper discussed mechanics process: "And extensive "Now, mere itself tend think once begins, go along it—that understood, my 73 easy full-fledged seen time, suspect long continues Act." Justice, 58-61 74 left, hand, efficacy and, other, recognition tendency contribute stability growth activity. recognize remove near assurance, indeed doubts, policies thereby. Automatic Canteen 346 61, 74, 1017, 1024, 1454 (1953), insure coherence broader laid down Congress"; observation information—even herman Act.32 IV 75 reversal "encroach[ed] [the] jury['s] authority" foreclosed "a 'no verdict' outcome." 134 (Adams, concurring). own review surrounding mass nearly months, commenced. third questions; fourth nervous jurors; fifth sponte amounted modified Allen charge33 answers jury; sixth repeated, Against internal pressures confusion jurors, morning seventh day Jury guidance." Judge acquiesced. initially impounded released appeal, references deadlock, strong report summarizing matters.34 sequence disturbing reasons. Any deliberating error. amply demonstrates experienced pitfalls inherent enterprise. First, Unexpected comments generate unintended misleading impressions subjec ive views jury—all challenge statements. Second, participants. Here, developed assumed undertook restate fellow understood resolution definite course, room. Finally, unavailability aggravate communicating acquiesced conference express intended—as did—to receive affairs prospects waived accurate nor repeat understandable reluctance Because neither aware real other" Counsel readily accomplished requesting courtroom clarifying instruction. Rogers 35, 38, 2091, 2094, (1975); Fillippon Albion Vein Slate 250 76, 81, 435, 436, 853 (1919). private alone—undesirable procedure error; rather, inadvertently return conversation, troubling. 79 impossible gauge returning swift issues positive indications hopeless least, 40-41, 2095. Jenkins 380 445, 85 957 (1965), reversible logic inapposite peculiar 80 persuaded verdict; assume conveyed jurors. illustrates hazards members. V 81 Respondents therefrom; infirm. sufficient. repeatedly given,35 accord cases. Section, Instructions 1964-1976, chs. 10, Devitt C. Blackmar, Practice 55.09, 55.17 (3d ed., 1979). differed minor immaterial respects respondents.36 82 difficulty 83 withdrew December 27, 1968, evidence, disavow defeat purpose. Mere inaction abandonment. withdraw, affirmatively notified longer participate undertaking understand expect acquiescence, disclosures scheme "Thus, joined definite, decisive step, disassociation unlawful enterprise." added). expansive specifically "[r]esumption behavior, intensified cutting wars," argued declined include instructions. seeks defend sentence sufficiently concerns, sentence, respondents principally object, meaningful detract generality first. 86 agree. read, conspiracy.37 able suggests, commands, confining blinders placed par icipation Affirmative Hyde 225 347, 369, 793, 803, 1114 (1912); Borelli, 336 376, 385 (CA2 1964). Law—Criminal Conspiracy, 920, 958 (1959). alone, constituted error.38 If new takes place, correcting giving compass given. 87 Accordingly, judgment Affirmed. STEWART joins opinion. BLACKMUN APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT [Present: Court.] What your problem, sir? 93 Russell. problems. all, sexual gender, struck, juror. 94 words, says she, neutral. status count. can't me now. way. fact, you, remember. All right. 99 thank 6:30, left. doctor, people getting distraught. depression stay there; they're coming high. Now pill. pills doctor downstairs. things, [3] thought she jump window. I, just sake, telling this, responsibility happen. Keene's job, say, high low, sometimes Keene there, perfectly again. 100 instances saw girl— 101 May this: discharged—we Is situation? point. 102 Judge. I'm sure sicknesses. seem—I mean, seem induced, thinks sick, sick. 103 bad, are. 104 doctor. feelings, things. want responsible anybody's health. 105 don't, either. 106 recall, though, before—when alternate anybody physically ahead everybody 107 realize that. wants duty. 108 tried 109 grant overcome those. 110 lunch hour, longer— 111 next is—and again, opinion—and wrong—and look ballots now, discussions, settled document, remembrance testimony. they—even sign document today, box swear no, twelve multiple system decide beyond [5] twelve, be— 112 decide. 113 ______it proves shadow doubt. 114 know. Each himself, man guilty, company, conscience anything else. feel, 116 suggesting? 117 asking do. point______ 118 longer. because, considerable time. 119 Everybody realizes 120 here deliberated—they deliberated three days, Wednesday, Thursday [6] Friday. half Saturday Sunday. usually eleven ten night. 121 you. 122 yet. 123 trying change anymore. Are hopelessly deadlocked never verdict? opinion, is. rely thing. forget terrible convince somebody, sure, good. 126 127 128 something looked at. Marshal's ought done. 129 consideration. talk 130 decision, guidance. 131 132 133 135 136 keep saying, "If it." 137 "He is." 138 No, 139 imply said. watching, breach 141 best can. 142 Thank come 143 [At 12:04 m. room.] 144 Certified transcript. /s/ MARION WIKE Marion Wike Official 146 [App. 1837-1840.] 147 POWELL, part. 148 join Parts II, opinion.1 excusing practices. 149 portions III, reasonable, lawful reducing buyer. ante, 455-456, 459 32.2 Otherwise, unenviable risking refusing losing sale, buyers. 150 faced forgo altogether. reaction disserve policy advancing materially antidiscrimination already "does price." 759, 977, (1945). Today confirms "it 'is concept.' Ante, 454, quoting attempted verify test "good faith." untruthful, acted bad 151 REHNQUIST dissenting 152 concur portion approving dissent r maining forth briefly doing so. 153 uses fixing correctly "not ambiguity." 434. However, starting discourse reasoning dispose contentions 154 prerequisite connection objections them, tendered afford pages detailed complex. 155 Defendants' 156 "It resolve 157 "First, engage verification. 158 159 "Secondly, competition, 160 done establishing 161 "However, wallboard, [exchanges] mutual list prices." 1720-1721 (emphasis 162 Read conjunction above, quoted 430, prices" Respondents' instruction* significantly differ add plainly erroneous pointed 163 troubling expressly congressionally prescribed length import fault. emphasizes constitutionally required, 437, misread courts. feel bound willing respectfully defer distinguished authors Institute's articles treatises sprinkled throughout text reservations undiscriminating emphasis weight appears 164 interrelationship cheerfully refrain task. clearly consented approves disagree approve separately together, guilty. 165 reversed, reinstated. 166 STEVENS, 167 why subscribe adopts 168 subscribed unless deliberately violated law.1 adhere today. 1890 enacted, substantive No wise today be, amendment enact. 169 fashioning adverse market.2 lesser viewing harmless. 471-473. theoretical exchanging prevalent market-wide about, surely remote. 170 afraid civil-criminal dichotomy work mischief tampering market. Conclusive presumptions play central criminal, price,3 purchasing determines price,4 unreasonable, unlawful, actual forbidden follow, presumes, conclusively, prosecution fixed intentions good.5 iTrenton Potteries, 273 392, 700. Stone explained infliction injury. limitation rights, pushed evil restrained.'" 380. (citation omitted). 171 Trenton Potteries face, appraised analysis.6 rule-of-reason "per se" analysis. species trade; illegality, nonetheless reason.7 172 itself—either price—but shown, unnecessary. 526. premised af ect extremely fact. premise valid treble-damages action. 173 IV, V, judgment. operate plants wide geographical markets. markets difficulties expense long-distance transportation named were: Georgia Kaiser-Gypsum Celotex Flintkote included: Chairman Board Executive Vice-President Gypsum, Sales President Pacific, Manager Kaiser-Gypsum, Celotex, Flintkote. unindicted co-conspirator producers—Johns-Manville Gypsum. 730, 1526, 13(b) ed.); infra. Relevant excerpted Appeals. (1977); id., 137-138 (Weis, dissenting). Fioravanti, 412 407 (CA3), cert. sub nom. Panaccione 837, 97, (1969). observed back deliberations." 1823. reproduced appendix "Significantly, deadlocked; indicate defendants; directive 'see [it] verdict.' trial, ordered aid preparation appeal. "Therefore, appellants entitled found: Robinson-Patman; resorted corroboration, success; good, independent truthfulness; strictly issue." 126. focuses laws, unchanged effect. 512, 341, 514 (MARSHALL, Of divining Chicago 246 238, 242, 683 (1918). Senator adverted texture accurately forecast shape content proscriptions. "I admit define line combinations. we, lawmakers, declare principles, assured apply carry meaning .." Cong.Rec. 2460 (1890). 1967, refined emphasize prosecutions willful President's Enforcement Administration Task Force Report: Crime Its Impact—An Assessment (1967). effects; increase efficiency less, competitive. reason, Citizens Southern Nat. Bank, 86, 113, 2099, 2115; 338, 513 (Fortas, prominently structure communication. L. Sullivan, 265-274 Exchanges greatest generating consistently subjected strict care dealings frequently Hall, Principles 344 1960); permitted encouraged, excessive caution spawned redound public's benefit. from, designed adulterated food sold consumers. latter situation, Park, 421 658, 1-672, 1903, 1911, 489 recently increased penalties Individual felonies punishable fine exceed $100,000, imprisonment years, both. Corporate violators $1 million fine. ed.). severity creating 256, (1952); Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, Colum.L.Rev. 55, (1933) (strict imprisonment). penalty 21, 1974, effective date An George's argument floor debate penal narrowly maxims: section, statute, liberally promote object. defines remedy, .. remedy immaterial. section enforced. describe, language, limits 2456 debated Senators George passed, fully distinctions intend required—the agree, effectuate 464-465 pass. Griffith, 334 100, 105, 941, 944, 1236 (1948). elevated demonstrated; burden. contend "prior exchange." Joint 50. Retroactive application judicially expanded crime" continues, contravene "principles fair embodied Due Process Clause." grounds only" proceedings, industry," post-Container period, comprises entire lack credited. favorable 400, ("[A]ny cause, unlawful"); 389, 611, (1923) ("[A] suppress [is] 585, (1925) (purpose "had tending arbitrarily lessen production liability). fraud, repudiating cases; related exempting infra, 452-453, penalized incorrect. Whatever merits argument, initiation antedated decisions. insulate merit fraud fall squarely claim, 9, upset determination. Cement's exception, rationale immunize 11, Di-Wall ambiguous Cases, 73,155, 88,557. Viviano Macaroni 411 255 (CA3 1969), suggesting, requiring, reaffirms teaching Staley, compel requirement, "Although commercially acquire everything feasible Act—to customer's If, lawful, inquiries, ly ng, sale. defense." (Citations 86-87, 78. Pet. Certiorari 97a-99a. 2(f) imposes inducing discounts, bolster credibility thereon secure 1495-1496 Great Tea 557 971 1977), 1372 liable (Kroger ) (A&P ). permissibility manner. 435 922, 1483, unavailable. case-by-case federal concrete situations. conclusions 2(f), 30, subsequent holding. implicitly suggests imperfect met. Unless abandoned, inadequate will, cases, who, discussed, satisfactory seemingly inevitable Moreover, affords are, broader, rejected. 492, 154, 528 (1896). toward can, violence, judgment," included original commencement 5, follows: "Because gist products, essential defendant. chargeable furtherance joint venture conspirators, rest, intendment party." 128-29, notify "each member" manageable task; "other" identifiable. thereof importance vigorously resumed five-year limitations. arise retrial, firm issue. 456 31. "There contacting nonexistence 'verification.' y 1857. 349-351 distinctio 444-445. recommended "criminal Report, supra 349. 1129. stated: "[T]he heard contrary. purposely produces prevent, contemplation, intending Patten, 226 525, 543, 141, 145, 333. face. out, "[e]xchanges 441 16. Rahl, Fixing Rule—Preface Perspective, Nw.L.Rev. 137, (1962).

Classification Label: 7