Court Opinion

ID: 9464088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:25:03.814049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:27.413736
License: Public Domain

HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree with the majority that Pierce did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege either by pleading guilty or by accepting probation. I cannot agree that Pierce lost his privilege by the manner in which he raised it, nor can I agree that the condition of probation was valid under the Federal Probation Act (18 U.S.C. § 3651). The majority’s contrary conclusions rest on a misreading of the record and the teachings of Hoffman v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 and United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez (9th Cir. en banc 1975) 521 F.2d 259.
The record reveals that the district court imposed the disclosure condition as an aid to its ultimate determination of the amount of the fine that it would assess; the financial examination was not relevant to any future probationary program. The majority opinion’s assumptions about the probationary functions of the ordered disclosure1 are contradicted by the record. The district court first imposed the maximum fine ($65,-000), committed Pierce to custody until the fine was paid or otherwise discharged in due course of law, stayed the commitment until March 29, 1974, and ordered Pierce to return to court on that day. The court explained that it “cannot see any need for probation supervision except approval of your residence and approval of your occupation. But [a] fine is warranted, a fine to be determined, however, by whatever your assets disclose.” The court reminded defense counsel that after the maximum fine has been imposed “at the present time . you have 120 days to bring a motion to modify it.” Defense counsel promptly made an oral motion to modify the fine, the prosecutor accepted the oral motion, and the court set the hearing on the motion for March 29, 1974.
Pierce appeared thereafter at the United States Attorney’s office and was sworn. Upon the advice of his counsel, Pierce refused to give “a statement of [his] financial assets” to the prosecutor on the ground, inter alia, that his answers might incriminate him in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. The district court formally revoked probation for Pierce’s refusal to comply with the challenged probation condition, and committed Pierce to the custody of the Attorney General for three years. Execution of the sentence was stayed pending appeal, first by the district court and then by this court.
The question before us is whether the challenged condition of probation was valid and thus provided a basis for revoking probation when Pierce refused to comply with it, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege. Applying the reasoning of United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, supra, 521 F.2d 259, I conclude that the condition was in violation of the Federal Probation Act. In Consuelo-Gonzalez, we held that “the terms and conditions of probation . . . must be reasonably related to the purposes of the Act. In determining whether a reasonable relationship exists, we have found it necessary to give consideration to the purposes sought *743to be served by probation, the extent to which the full constitutional guarantees available to those not under probation should be accorded probationers, and the legitimate needs of law enforcement.” (521 F.2d at 262.) This probation condition meets none of these prerequisites.
The issue presented is narrow: Can the court validly impose a condition of probation that compels a probationer to yield his Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination and to testify under oath before a prosecutor about his past conduct and his current financial affairs and then revoke probation when the probationer declines to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and to testify?2 I think the answer is a firm “no.”
The condition was not on its face directed to any probationary goal. The purpose of imposing the condition was not to rehabilitate Pierce, to help the probation department in supervising him, to shield him from future temptation or future wrongdoing, or to aid in an order of restitution.3 The condition was not imposed to aid law enforcement officers (police) in detecting or deterring future illegal conduct. The district court explicitly and forthrightly explained that the aim was to provide the court with enough financial information to permit it to reevaluate the appropriateness of the maximum fine provisionally imposed when Pierce moved to modify the sentence, 1. e., to reduce the fine.
The majority opinion correctly observes that Pierce’s guilty plea did not deprive him of his Fifth Amendment privilege in respect of past transactions that could subject him to “further” criminal charges.4 The Fifth Amendment question is not whether the testimony would have been relevant to prove the concealment counts — of course it would — but whether the same testimony could possibly tend to incriminate Pierce as to other crimes — of course it could. (E. g., Hoffman v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118) Pierce’s specific concern was his exposure to charges of criminal tax evasion, commonly proved by the net worth method. The compelled testimony would obviously be potentially helpful in making a net worth case.
The majority opinion’s conclusion that Pierce did not properly raise his privilege is also unsupported by the record. Pierce appeared before the prosecutor and was sworn. The prosecutor informed him, in accordance with the court’s order, that the subject matter of the interrogation was “[the] amounts and locations of all [Pierce’s] assets.” Pierce then declined to answer, on advice of counsel, based on his Fifth Amendment privilege. There was no “blanket refusal to answer any question” because no “blanket” existed. The prosecutor told Pierce that the purpose of the “hearing” [deposition] was to obtain under oath Pierce’s statement “of his financial assets,” as ordered by the district court. He did not put his statement in the form of a question, but the substance of the statement was identical.5 All we have to do is to *744ask whether Pierce’s revelation of hi's assets might have incriminated him. The question is answered simply: “Yes.” As Hoffman v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118, observed: The claim of privilege must be sustained unless it is “ ‘perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, . that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency’ to incriminate.” (341 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. at 819 (quoting Temple v. Commonwealth (1881) 75 Va. 892, 898 (emphasis in original).)) In Hoffman, the lower court was reversed because it failed to take into consideration information outside the record that the chief occupation of some individuals involves evasion of federal criminal laws. Pierce presents an even stronger case because no facts outside the record need be noted.
Because I would invalidate the probation condition because it is irrelevant to the purposes of the Federal probation Act, I do not reach any constitutional issue.6 I would vacate the order revoking probation, vacate the challenged probation condition, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

. “By acquiring information on Pierce’s present assets, the court, acting through the probation department, develops a means of detecting illicit investment activities that result in future increases in net worth. Carrying out a program of supervision in this manner is important both in terms of rehabilitation and protection of the public. The possibility of swift detection encourages the defendant to mend his ways. Hopefully this will lead to full rehabilitation. At the same time, strict supervision leads to greater protection of the public by deterring the probationer from further criminal activity.”

. Very different questions would be posed if, absent the probation condition, the district court denied Pierce’s motion to modify the sentence on the ground that Pierce had failed to testify under oath about his financial condition, or, the court, sua sponte, or on the prosecutor’s motion, had set aside its order staying execution of sentence because Pierce had failed to or declined to provide the court with the same sworn testimony.

. Although the court might have validly conditioned probation on restitution of tax liability, United States v. Weber (7th Cir. 1971) 437 F.2d 1218; 18 U.S.C. § 3651, it did not do so here, perhaps because of the necessity of a civil tax proceeding to first determine liability. (United States v. White (2d Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 89; United States v. Taylor (4th Cir. 1962) 305 F.2d 183.)

. “The defendant retains his privilege as to crimes for which he may still be liable.” (Majority op’n, 561 F.2d 735 at 738.)

. The majority’s reference to United States v. Malnik (5th Cir. 1974) 489 F.2d 682, and to the other cases cited is inappropriate. All of them involve some kind of blanket refusal to testify at all or to testify about unspecified subjects. To defeat a claim of privilege where there has been no vague, blanket refusal, it is incumbent upon the Government “to establish with perfect clarity that the response would not possibly have a tendency to incriminate.” (McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 139 *744(E. Cleary ed. 1972). Cf. United States v. Theep (9th Cir. 1974) 502 F.2d 797, 799 (“It does not appear that [the IRS agent] made the specific inquiries required to afford the appellants the opportunity to make [the] appropriate objection . . .”).)

. Assuming arguendo that the condition here passes statutory muster, the constitutional question is whether as a result of validly invoking his right to remain silent, the consequence of probation revocation might be imposed. (See Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (“The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”).)
The relevant precedent on this issue includes cases such as Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (revocation of public employment after assertion of privilege); Spevack v. Klein (1967) 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (disbarment); Gardner v. Broderick (1968) 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed .2d 1082 (revocation of public employment); Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm’r (1968) 392 U.S. 280, 88 S.Ct. 1917, 20 L.Ed.2d 1089 (revocation of public employment); and Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (revocation of public contracting privileges).