Feldman v. United States
Decision Date | 29 May 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 193,193 |
Parties | FELDMAN v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Seymour M. Klein, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Chester T. Lane, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
This is an indictment under Section 215 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 338, 18 U.S.C.A. § 338, for using the mails to further a fraudulent scheme. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting. 136 F.2d 394. We brought the case here, 320 U.S. 724, 64 S.Ct. 55, to consider the single question whether the admission of testimony previously given by petitioner in supplementary proceedings in a state court deprived him of the protection of the Fifth Amendment against being 'compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'
In accordance with New York procedure, known as supplementary proceedings, designed to aid in the discovery of assets of a debtor, N.Y. Civil Practice Act, art. 45, Feldman, a judgment debtor, was called as a witness in such proceedings on several occasions between March 31, 1936, and September 29, 1939. Up to March 14, 1938, the New York immunity statute merely provided that a debtor might not be excused from testifying because of self-crimination but that his testimony could not be used in evidence in a subsequent criminal proceeding against him. N.Y. Laws, 1935, c. 630, § 789. By an Act of March 14, 1938, New York broadened the debtor's immunity so as to free him from prosecution on account of any matter revealed in his testimony. N.Y. Laws 1938, c. 108, § 17, N.Y. Civil Practice Act, § 789. While the earlier provision was in effect, Feldman testified that he was unemployed, paid rent of $250 a month from funds supplied by his family, owed about $340,000 and contemplated immediate bankruptcy. He further testified that about once a month his father sent him a book of signed checks, he sent large sums of money to his father by Western Union and destroyed whatever evidence the receipts might offer—in short, that he was 'kiting' his father's checks by sending the proceeds of the later checks to cover those cashed earlier. After March 14, 1938, and down through September, 1939, Feldman again testified in New York supplementary proceedings, giving further details of his bizarre 'kiting' practices.
The federal charge was the use of the mails in a scheme to defraud executed by 'kiting' checks. In the trial, the Government introduced Feldman's testimony in the New York supplementary proceedings. He did not take the stand. The Government contends that it is unnecessary to decide whether the claim of privilege duly made bars the admission of this testimony. It suggests that testimony given prior to the Act of March 14, 1938, was not compellable and therefore Feldman waived any privilege, in that the New York statute prior to March 14, 1938, did not grant an immunity coextensive with the privilege available under New York law. People ex rel. Lewisohn v. O'Brien, 176 N.Y. 253, 68 N.E. 353. As to testimony under the later New York statute, the Government suggests that it either was not incriminating or was merely repetitive of the earlier voluntary testimony, making its admission in any event not prejudicial.
We put to one side all these subtler issues because we think they cannot dispose of the case. And so we come directly to the main question, namely whether the Fifth Amendment prohibited the admission against Feldman upon his trial in a federal court of the earlier testimony given by him in the state courts. While the point has not been formally decided, we deem the answer to be controlled by a long series of decisions expressing basic principles of our federation.
The effective enforcement of a well designed penal code is of course indispensable for social security. But the Bill of Rights was added to the original Constitution in the conviction that too high a price may be paid even for the unhampered enforcement of the criminal law and that, in its attainment, other social objects of a free society should not be sacrificed. We are immediately concerned with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, intertwined as they are, and expressing as they do supplementing phases of the same constitutional purpose—to maintain inviolate large areas of personal privacy. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. 524, 532, 29 L.Ed. 746. 'The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles (of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.' Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393, 34 S.Ct. 341, 344, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177. Boyd v. United States, supra, 116 U.S. 633, 6 S.Ct. 534, 29 L.Ed. 746.
But for more than one hundred years, ever since Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672, one of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 650, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380, 26 S.Ct. 73, 75, 50 L.Ed. 234, 4 Ann.Cas. 689; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97. Conversely, a State cannot by operating within its constitutional powers restrict the operations of the National Government within its sphere. The distinctive operations of the two governments within their respective spheres is basic to our federal constitutional system, howsoever complicated and difficult the practical accommodations to it may be. The matter was put in classic terms in what Chief Justice Taft called 'the great judgment', Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 261, 42 S.Ct. 309, 311, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879, of Chief Justice Taney in Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 516, 16 L.Ed. 169:
This principle has governed a series of decisions which for all practical purposes rule the present case. When this Court for the first time sustained an immunity statute as adequate, it rejected the argument that because federal immunity could not bar use in a state prosecution of testimony compelled in a federal court, the immunity falls short of the constitutional requirement. Brown v. Walker, supra, 161 U.S. at page 606, 16 S.Ct. at page 650, 40 L.Ed. 819. And when the reverse claim was made as to a state immunity statute, that a disclosure compelled in a state court could not assure immunity in a federal court, the argument was again rejected because 'The state (anti-trust) statute could not, of course, prevent a prosecution of the same party under the United States (anti-trust) statute, and it could not prevent the testimony given by the party in the state proceeding from being used against the same person in a Federal court for a violation of the Federal statute, if it could be imagined that such prosecution would be instituted under such circumstances.' Jack v. Kansas, supra 199 U.S. at page 380, 26 S.Ct. at page 75, 50 L.Ed. 234, 4 Ann.Cas. 689. When the matter was here last it was thus summarized: United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 149, 52 S.Ct. 63, 65, 76 L.Ed. 210, 82 A.L.R. 1376.
And so while evidence secured through unreasonable search and seizure by federal officials is inadmissible in a federal prosecution, Weeks v. United States, supra; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145, incriminating documents so secured by state officials without participation by federal officials but turned over for their use are admissible in a federal prosecution. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159. Relevant testimony is not barred from use in a criminal trial in a federal court unless wrongfully acquired by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. Gecas
...Over the next several years, the Court, relying on Murdock, decided a number of related issues. In Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408 (1944), the Court held that the use in a federal prosecution of testimony secured in a state proceeding under a grant of st......
-
Beauregard v. Wingard
...phases of the same constitutional purpose — to maintain inviolate large areas of personal privacy.' Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 489-490 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408. The philosophy of each Amendment and of each freedom is complementary to, although not dependent upon......
-
United State v. Kahriger
...does not enable States to give immunity from use in federal courts of testimony given in a State court. Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408. It is a wholly different thing to hold that Congress, which cannot constitutionally grapple directly with gambling in......
-
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
... ... Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be deemed fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489. This case presents a ... Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S.Ct. 1302, 2 L.Ed.2d 1393; Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408; and United States v. Murdock, 284 ... ...
-
DENYING FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO WITNESSES FACING FOREIGN PROSECUTIONS: SELF-INCRIMINATION DISCRIMINATION?
...(54) Id. (55) Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69 (1906); United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 148 (1931); Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 492 (1944); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371,379 (56) Hale, 201 U.S. at 43. (57) Id. at 66-69. (58) Id. (59) Id. at 69. (60) 284 U.S. 141 (1931)......
-
The hand-off procedure or the new silver platter: how today's police are serving up potentially tainted evidence without even revealing the search that produced it to defendants or to courts.
...state officials over Fourth Amendment challenge in federal court because there was no federal participation); cf Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 492-93 (1944) (admitting evidence elicited in a state proceeding under state immunity in a federal prosecution over Fifth Amendment challe......
-
Torture and the Fifth Amendment
...Franklin. (Original published 1888)Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Ex parte Miligan, 271 U.S. 2 (1866).Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487 (1944).Friedrich, C. J. (1957). Constitutional reason of state: The survival of the constitutional order. Providence, RI:Brown University P......
-
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1963-1964
...( United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 1931 ) , Knapp (Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 1958), and Feldman (Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 1944). &dquo;We hold that the constitutional privilegeagainst self-incrimination protects a state witness against incrimination under fede......
-
§ 18. Crimes - Evidence Against One's Self - Jeopardy
...980, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1959); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S. Ct. 1302, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1393 (1958), and Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S. Ct. 1082, 88 L. Ed. 1408 (1944).Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 31. Cross Reference: For when p......
-
§ 18. Crimes - Evidence Against One's Self - Jeopardy
...980, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1959); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S. Ct. 1302, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1393 (1958), and Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S. Ct. 1082, 88 L. Ed. 1408 (1944).Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 31. Cross Reference: For when p......
-
Colo. Const. art. II § 18 Crimes - Evidence Against One's Self - Jeopardy
...980, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1959); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S. Ct. 1302, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1393 (1958), and Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S. Ct. 1082, 88 L. Ed. 1408 (1944).Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 31. Cross Reference: For when p......
-
Colo. Const. art. II § 18 Crimes - Evidence Against One's Self - Jeopardy
...980, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1959); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S. Ct. 1302, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1393 (1958), and Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S. Ct. 1082, 88 L. Ed. 1408 (1944).Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 31. Cross Reference: For when p......