United States v. Lookretis
Decision Date | 10 September 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 16088.,16088. |
Citation | 398 F.2d 64 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John LOOKRETIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Maurice J. Walsh, Chicago, Ill., John Kappos, Gary, Ind., for defendant-appellant.
Alfred W. Moellering, U. S. Atty., Philip Wilens, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for appellee; Jeffrey Cole, Charles Ruff, Attys., Dept of Justice, of counsel.
Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge, and KILEY, Circuit Judge.
The judgment order of this Court in United States v. Lookretis, 7 Cir., 385 F.2d 487, was vacated by the Supreme Court following its decisions in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889; and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, and the case remanded to this Court "for further consideration in the light of" Marchetti, and Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.
The pertinent facts are adequately set forth in our previous opinion (385 F.2d 487) and need not be repeated here. The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts, and exhibits admitted in evidence by stipulation.
In disposing of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issue raised by the defendant's contention that his conviction rests in part on evidence in the form of disclosures compelled by the federal wagering tax statutes (26 U.S.C.A. § 4411 and § 4412) we concluded (385 F. 2d 489-490) that:
In its brief on remand the government concedes that the "harmless-constitutional-error rule" promulgated in Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, to the effect that:
"* * * there may be some constitutional errors which in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction."
is subject to a limitation that once a constitutional infraction has been shown, the government must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained". Chapman, supra, p. 24, 87 S.Ct. p. 828.
In Marchetti it was held that nothing in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, and Lewis v. United States, 348 U.S. 419, 75 S.Ct. 415, 99 L.Ed. 475:
As we understand the impact of Marchetti on the instant case the stipulated disclosures compelled by defendant's compliance with the federal wagering tax statutes are inadmissible against him over his assertion of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. And in Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, p. 71, 88 S.Ct. 709, p. 715, it was pointed out:
"Given the decisions of this Court in Kahriger and Lewis, supra, which were on the books at the time of petitioner\'s trial, and left untouched by Albertson v. SACB, supra 382 U.S. 70, 86 S.Ct. 194, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, we are unable to view his failure to present this issue as an effective waiver of the constitutional privilege."
The above quoted observation, which gives recognition to the pre-Marchetti force of Kahriger and Lewis, is equally apposite to any attempt to divine whether or not the compelled disclosures may have contributed to the finding of guilt made by the trial judge. We are unable to state that the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial judge despite Kahriger and Lewis rejected the probative value of the compelled disclosures and relied solely on other evidence which is not subject to the Fifth...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Stuller
...of evidence tending to establish their guilt. (Marchetti v. United States, Supra, 390 U.S. 39, 48, 88 S.Ct. 697.) In United States v. Lookretis, 7 Cir., 398 F.2d 64, evidence obtained from compliance with the wagering tax law struck down in Marchetti was deemed inadmissible in a prosecution......
-
United States ex rel. Savino v. Follette
...There can be doubt that the petitioner was their perpetrator." 391 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1793. See also, United States v. Lookretis, 398 F.2d 64, 65-66 (7th Cir. 1968); United States ex rel. Joseph v. LaVallee, 290 F. Supp. 90, 95 (N.D.N.Y.1968). But see, Hooper v. Swenson, 401 F.2d 352,......
-
United States v. Hanon
...under the Fifth Amendment. In rejecting this argument, the Court states: "For this proposition Knox relies on United States v. Lookretis, 398 F.2d 64 (C.A. 7th Cir. 1968), where, after this Court had remanded for reconsideration in light of Marchetti, see 390 U.S. 338, 88 S.Ct. 1097, 19 L.E......
-
Garner v. U.S.
...return found violative of the privilege in Marchetti and his answers had been used against him in a subsequent prosecution (see 398 F.2d 64 (7th Cir. 1968)), the Court, apparently considering the use of the returns an equivalent violation of his privilege, vacated his conviction and remande......