Warszower v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 338,338 |
| Citation | 61 S.Ct. 603,85 L.Ed. 876,312 U.S. 342 |
| Parties | WARSZOWER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Osmond K. Fraenkel and Edward I. Aronow, both of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. John T. Cahill, of New York City, for respondent.
This case is similar to Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335, 61 S.Ct. 599, 85 L.Ed. —-, decided today. This petitioner also was indicted for the use of a passport for the purpose of entering the United States, which passport had been secured by false statements in the application for its issue. We granted certiorari, 311 U.S. 631, 61 S.Ct. 46, 85 L.Ed. —-, because of the contention that this use of the passport was not prohibited by section 2, Title IX of the Act of June 15, 1917, 22 U.S.C.A. § 220, and because of a conflict on a rule of evidence, referred to by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The false statements charged were with respect to petitioner's name, citizenship, place of birth and residence abroad and the use relied upon was the presentation of the passport to an immigration inspector. A jury convicted petitioner, a sentence of two years was imposed and that judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.1
As grounds for reversal petitioner urges (1) that the presentation of a wrongfully held passport to an immigration officer upon landing is not a use within the statute; (2) that the evidence of the use was insufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury; and (3) that conviction was obtained by the use of admissions before the crime, without corroboration, to establish necessary elements of the charge.
Nothing need be added to the discussion in the Browder case of the illegality of this use. There are no marks of differentiation.
Proof of Presentation.—Petitioner's argument that the proof of presentation of the passport was insufficient rests upon the testimony of the inspector, which was based on the manifest of United States citizens arriving on the S. S. Normandie on September 30, 1937. The manifest contains a list of names, accompanied by passport numbers and other information. Next to each name appears a check mark by the inspector. The list includes 'Robert Wiener,' the holder of passport No. 332207, which is the passport issued to petitioner. The inspector testified that he had no independent recollection of the arrival of this Robert Wiener, but that from looking at the manifest he could say that the passport had been presented to him, because 'it is my invariable practice when the number of the passport appears on the manifest to ask for that passport and have it shown to me * * * by the passenger.' On cross examination the inspector stated that he himself did not make any writing on the manifest as to what the people showed him. This colloquy then occurred:
'The Court: * * * do you make any entry on the manifest when a man identifies himself as an American citizen?
'The Witness: The whole manifest is of American citizens.
'The Court: And when the man presented his passport what did you do?
'The Witness: That check mark shows he was admitted as a United States citizen.
'The Court: On a passport?
'The Witness: Not necessarily.
'The Court: Can you tell us whether he had a passport?
'The Witness: From the fact the number of the passport appears there.
'Mr. Fowler: That is objected to.
The petitioner asks reversal because of the answer 'Not necessarily,' contending this shows that the check mark did not inescapably indicate the presentation of a passport. The Government argues that the check mark was intended merely to show admission as a citizen and that the language does not nullify or indeed impugn the direct assertions of the inspector. We are clear that this testimony as a whole justified the submission to the jury at any rate and its conclusion that petitioner actually used his passport in securing admission to this country.
Corroboration of Admissions.—The prosecution had the burden of proving that the passport was obtained by the use of false statements. As the trial court instructed the jury it might convict if any one of the statements charged in the indictment to be false was found false, it is necessary before affirmance is justified to decide whether there was adequate evidence to support the charge of falsity as to each of the statements. Petitioner contends that as to the allegedly false statements of American citizenship and no prior residence outside the United States, there was no proof of falsity except admissions to the contrary made by petitioner prior to the use of the passport. Such admissions, it is urged, require corroboration. This argument is drawn from the requirement of corroboration as to confessions after the crime.2 As a corollary, it is said that the corroboration must reach to each element of the corpus delicti.3
To establish that petitioner was not a citizen of the United States and that he had resided abroad, the Government relied on the following proof: The manifest of alien passengers of the S. S. Haverford, which arrived at Philadelphia on March 27, 1914, stated that Welwel Warszower, age 21, was a citizen or subject of Russia, whose last permanent residence was in Vikolsk, Russia, where his father lived; that he had never been in the United States before; and that he had been born in Radajenko, Russia. Although the officer who had examined Warszower on this occasion was dead, the boarding officer testified it was the practice to check all answers on the manifest with the alien personally before allowing him to enter. Three years later, on June 5, 1917, petitioner registered for the draft under the name 'William Weiner'; he stated he was an alien born in Russia on September 5, 1893, and a citizen or subject of Russia. Petitioner furnished the same information in a draft question-naire returned on December 31, 1917, where he also stated that he spoke Russian, that he arrived in this country at Philadelphia on March 28, 1914, on the S. S. Haverford, that his parents had not been naturalized, that he had not taken out first papers,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schneiderman
...made "prior to the crime," or themselves constitute the offense or an essential element thereof. See Warszower v. United States, 1941, 312 U.S. 342, 347-348, 61 S.Ct. 603, 85 L.Ed. 876; cf. Yost v. United States, 4 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 147; Tabor v. United States, 4 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d 254......
-
People v. Beagle
...651; People v. Bispham (1938) 26 Cal.App.2d 216, 79 P.2d 166.) The federal rule is to the contrary. (Warszower v. United States (1941) 312 U.S. 342, 347, 61 S.Ct. 603, 85 L.Ed. 876.) Although we agree that the risk of conviction on a false pre-offense statement alone is less than the risk o......
-
State v. Leniart
...does not apply so as to bar statements that an accused made prior to committing the alleged crime. See Warszower v. United States , 312 U.S. 342, 347, 61 S. Ct. 603, 85 L. Ed. 876 (1941) ; see also State v. Farnum , supra, 275 Conn. at 35, 878 A.2d 1095 (prior statement of intent to commit ......
-
U.S. v. Pennell
...U.S. 926, 102 S.Ct. 1288, 71 L.Ed.2d 469 (1982), but need not be corroborated in the latter instance. Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 347, 61 S.Ct. 603, 606, 85 L.Ed. 876 (1941) (admission before the crime); United States v. Head, 546 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied sub nom.......
-
Burying the Body—dismantling the Corpus Delicti Rule and Adopting the Trustworthiness Standard
...statements made before the commission of a crime and co-conspirator statements as requiring no corroboration), citing Warszower v. U.S., 312 U.S. 342, 347 (1941) and U.S. v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 954 (2d Cir. 1991). [82] LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 578. [83] See Robson, 80 P.3d at 913 (case dismis......