Cases by Issue - False Statements

Brogan v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-1579

Petitioner

Brogan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 398 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1997

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1998

Advocates

Stuart A. Holtzman (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Seth P. Waxman (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

When questioned by federal agents as to the receipt of gifts or money from a company whose employees were members of the union in which he was an officer, James Brogan falsely answered "no." Brogan was subsequently indicted on federal bribery charges and the making of false statements within a federal agency's jurisdiction. Brogan challenged his conviction, arguing that false statements which merely deny wrongdoing, and do not impede federal functions, are protected under the Fifth Amendment. On appeal from an appeals court judgment upholding an adverse district court ruling, the Supreme Court granted Brogan certiorari.

Question

Is the so-called "exculpatory no" doctrine, excluding from criminal sanction false statements that merely deny one's wrongdoing, consistent with the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the imposition of criminal liability for false statements is not limited only to those falsehoods that pervert governmental functions - it applies to statements "of whatever kind." Moreover, even if the "exculpatory no" doctrine did apply to statements that do not impede federal functions, Brogan would not benefit from it since his falsehoods were intended to prevent federal agents from uncovering the truth. The Court concluded by noting that a literal reading of federal laws which prohibit the "exculpatory no" defense is consistent with the Fifth Amendment, since th Framers never intended to confer a privilege to lie.

United States v. Wells

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-1228

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wells

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 482 (1997)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1996

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1997

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)

James R. Wyrsch (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Jerry E. Wells and Kenneth R. Steele were charged with knowingly making false and "material" statements to a federally insured bank in violation of federal law. At the trial's end, the District Court instructed the jury, at the Government's request, that withholding a "material fact" made a statement or representation false and that materiality of an allegedly false statement was for the judge, not the jury, to determine. Subsequently, the jury treated Wells and Steele's statements as material and convicted them. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided that materiality was a question for the jury to decide. On appeal, Wells and Steele argued that materiality was an element of knowingly making false and "material" statements to a federally insured bank in violation of federal law and it was a question for the jury to decide. The Government then argued materiality was not an element of the crime, so that no harm had been done when the trial judge had dealt with the issue. The Court of Appeals agreed with Wells and Steele, vacated their convictions and sentences, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Question

Is the materiality of falsehood an element of the crime of knowingly making a false statement to a federally insured bank?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1014

No. In an 8-1 decision, authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court ruled that the materiality of falsehood is not an element of the crime of knowingly making a false statement to a federally insured bank. Justice Souter wrote for the court that prosecutors need not prove that a lie was relevant enough to affect the outcome of a bank's decision because the law does not require such materiality.

Hubbard v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-172

Petitioner

Hubbard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 695 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1995

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1995

Advocates

Richard P. Bress (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul Morris (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hubbard, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

United States v. Rodgers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-620

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodgers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 475 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Barbara E. Etkind (on behalf of Petitioner)

Albert N. Moskowitz (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

United States v. Yermian

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-346

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yermian

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 63 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Carolyn F. Corwin (on behalf of Petitioner)

Stephen J. Hillman (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1001

None

Rubin v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1013

Petitioner

Rubin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 424 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Louis Bender (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen M. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

United States v. Hvass

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Hvass

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 570 (1958)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1958

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1621

None