Court Opinion

ID: 9484147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:42:05.150604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:02.959892
License: Public Domain

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur. We correctly apply our precedent, but I doubt the soundness of this precedent. In my view, we have allowed the exculpatory no doctrine to run too far afield.
The original basis for this doctrine was that “mere negative responses” lay outside the intended scope of § 1001. Paternostro v. United States, 311 F.2d 298, 305 (5th Cir.1962). We found further justification for the doctrine in a perception that a broad application of the statute came “uncomfortably close” to infringing upon Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. Lambert, 501 F.2d 943, 946 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc). Some sister courts are unmoved. • They note that the Fifth Amendment protects persons who refuse to answer, not those who speak and lie. See, e.g., United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267, 274 (D.C.Cir.1989).
While providing a salutory check on abuse of § 1001, if unfettered the doctrine could undermine its operation, a statute read by the Supreme Court to cover a broad range of conduct. See United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475, 104 S.Ct. 1942, 80 L.Ed.2d 492 (1984). Some courts have held that “any statement beyond a simple ‘no’ does not fall within the exception.” United States v. Capo, 791 F.2d 1054, 1069 (2d Cir.1986). See also United States v. Medina De Perez, 799 F.2d 540, *171544 (9th Cir.1986) (limiting doctrine); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179, 183 (4th Cir.1988) (same); but see United States v. Steele, 933 F.2d 1313, 1320 (6th Cir.1991) (en banc).
We have taken the observation that Mr. Paternostro did not “aggressively and deliberately” misstate the truth and made it a mantra.
[H]e did not aggressively and deliberately initiate any positive or affirmative statement calculated to pervert the legitimate functions of government. This last factor has been critical in the Fifth Circuit cases since Paternostro —
United States v. Scknaiderman, 568 F.2d 1208, 1212 (5th Cir.1978). The exculpatory no was originally seen as a narrow exception to a broad proscription of false statements, and as such defensible. We should return the doctrine to its original and proper channel.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
July 1, 1993.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.