United States v. Bramblett, No. 159
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | REED |
| Citation | 348 U.S. 503,75 S.Ct. 504,99 L.Ed. 594 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Ernest King BRAMBLETT |
| Docket Number | No. 159 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1955 |
v.
Ernest King BRAMBLETT.
Mr.
Charles F. Barber, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 10, 1953, an 18-count indictment was returned in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charging the appellee, a former member
Page 504
of Congress, with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001. 1 During the course of the trial a judgment of acquittal was ordered on counts 8 through 18 of the indictment. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the remaining 7 counts which charged the appellee with having falsely and fraudulently represented to the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives that a named woman was entitled to compensation as his official clerk. The District Court granted appellee's motion in arrest of judgment, holding that he had not falsified a material fact "within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" since the Disbursing Office was not a department or agency within the meaning of the statute. The District Court was of the opinion that the statute does not afford protection to the legislative and judicial branches of the Government. The Government brought this case here on direct appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731. Reference to the evolution of § 1001 will assist in determining the correctness of the decision below. A detailed analysis appears in the opinion of the trial court. 120 F.Supp. 857, 858.
Section 1001 had its origin in a statute passed almost 100 years ago in the wake of a spate of frauds upon the Government. The Act of March 2, 1863, 12 Stat. 696, 'An Act to prevent and punish Frauds upon the Government of the United States', made it a criminal offense for
'any person in the land or naval forces of the United States * * * (to) make or cause to be made, or present
Page 505
or cause to be presented for payment or approval to or by any person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent * * *.'
This provision clearly covers the presentation of false claims against any component of the Government to any officer of the Government. The prohibition of the statute is broad, although its application was limited to military personnel.
False statements were proscribed in the following clause of the same section in these terms:
'any person in such forces or service who shall, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding in obtaining, the approval or payment of such claim, make, use, or cause to be made or used, any false bill, receipt, voucher, entry, roll, account, claim, statement, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent statement or entry'.
It will be noted that there is here no specification as to the group to whom the false statements had to be made. The provision in the false claims section which made the presentation of false claims to 'any person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States' punishable might reasonably have been applied here. There would be no justification for giving the false statements section a narrower scope, for, so long as the false statement was made with the indicated purpose, the statute made it punishable.
From 1863 to 1934 the coverage of the statute was at various times extended, but no change was made which could be or is taken by the appellee as restricting the
Page 506
scope of the false statements provision to the executive branch.2
The words urged as crucial in this case first appeared in the revision of 1934. 48 Stat. 996. No change was made in the false claims portion of the statute, but the false statements section was amended to read:
'or whoever shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder; * * *.' (Italics supplied.)
The amendment deleted all words as to purpose and inserted the italicized phrase. Under the prior statutes there had been no possibility of a restrictive interpretation which would read out falsifications made to officers of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Hansen, Crim. A. No. 83-00075 (JHG).
...law clearly established that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 embraced false statements made to the House of Representatives. United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 509, 75 S.Ct. 504, 508, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955), overruled by Hubbard v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1754, 131 L.Ed.2d 779 (1995); s......
-
U.S. v. Chevoor, No. 75--1144
...25, 1948, 62 Stat. 749, but none of the minor changes since 1934 have affected the substance of the statute, United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955). Under Gilliland and Bramblett, the provision has a very broad scope. But in Friedman v. United States, 37......
-
United States v. Jenkins, No. 79
...been regarded as an arrest of judgment and the government would have been permitted to appeal. See, e. g., United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 Just as a genuine arrest of judgment would have permitted a government appeal in Sisson, under § 3731, so, too, tha......
-
U.S. v. Manning, No. 07-5035.
...as used in § 1001, "was meant to describe the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government." Bramblett, 348 U.S. at 509, 75 S.Ct. 504 (emphasis added). "In the wake of Bramblett, federal courts carved out the `judicial function' exception to § 1001, under which § 1001 was ......
-
U.S. v. Moore, No. 78-1594
...16 L.Ed.2d at 520; United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 413, 77 S.Ct. 397, 400, 1 L.Ed.2d 430, 434 (1957); United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 509-510, 75 S.Ct. 504, 508, 99 L.Ed. 594, 600 123 Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 397, 80 L.Ed. 522, 526 (1936). Se......
-
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, Docket No. 19-1540-cv
...in section 1001, "was meant to describe the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government." United States v. Bramblett , 348 U.S. 503, 509, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955) (emphasis added).The Committees respond that an interpretation of "department" in section 1001 is no......
-
US v. Hansen, Crim. A. No. 83-00075 (JHG).
...law clearly established that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 embraced false statements made to the House of Representatives. United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 509, 75 S.Ct. 504, 508, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955), overruled by Hubbard v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1754, 131 L.Ed.2d 779 (1995); s......
-
United States v. Thevis, Crim. No. H-78-73
...no" doctrine is grounded in part in the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That history is recounted in United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 504-08, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955) and United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93-95, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941) and will no......
-
The Warren Court - After Three Terms
...147 (1954); Sullivan v. United States, 348 U.S. 170 (1954); Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 (1955); and United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955). 27 Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954); Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954); United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 (......