Woolley v. United States

• Citation: 97 F.2d 258
• Decision Date: 31 May 1938
• Docket Number: No. 8687.,8687.
• Parties: WOOLLEY v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

97 F.2d 258 (1938)

WOOLLEY v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8687.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 31, 1938.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Emmett E. Doherty and Joseph F. Rank, both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Solomon Rosenbaum, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellant.

Ben Harrison, U. S. Atty., and Norman W. Neukom, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., and Roger Kent, Atty., Securities & Exchange Commission, of San Francisco, Cal. (Roger Kent, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for the United States.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of perjury under an indictment charging the giving of false testimony in an investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Orders of the trial court overruling a demurrer to the indictment and denying a motion to quash are assigned as error. Errors are also assigned in the admission and rejection of evidence; and certain constitutional infirmities are urged as against the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S. C.A. § 77a et seq.

In the main, the arguments relating to the sufficiency of the indictment are too lacking in substance to justify detailed statement or consideration. The grounds of the demurrer and motion were that facts sufficient to constitute an offense under the perjury statute are not alleged; that the Securities and Exchange Commission, before which the act of perjury is alleged to have been committed, is not a lawfully constituted body; that the nature of the investigation being conducted before the commission is not set out; that the particular office held by the officer administering the alleged oath is not disclosed; and that the indictment is ambiguous and uncertain in ten different particulars.

The indictment charges that on July 18, 1936, a certain investigation came on to be heard in the southern district of California before the Securities and Exchange Commission, the latter having full power and jurisdiction to conduct the same; and that thereupon the circumstances surrounding the organization, the incorporation, and the operation of Cota Oil Company, a Utah corporation, and the connection of the defendant therewith, became and were material questions in the investigation; that the defendant was called as a witness in the investigation and was duly sworn by Charles R. Burr, an officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission designated to conduct the investigation, the said Burr as such officer being duly authorized and empowered under the laws of the United States to administer such oath; that defendant, as a witness in the investigation, and being so duly sworn, falsely testified in substance that he did not organize, incorporate, nor operate said Cota Oil Company, nor cause it to be organized, incorporated, nor operated, and that he had nothing to do with said corporation, and that he had no connection with it; whereas in truth and in fact the defendant caused the corporation to be organized and incorporated and operated; that in fact he requested one Adamson to become an incorporator, director, and officer of the corporation, and to transfer to the corporation certain properties in which the defendant had a beneficial interest; and in fact defendant was authorized to and did sign checks, drafts, and other documents for and on behalf of the corporation, and did participate in the operation of it. It is alleged that in all particulars the testimony, statements, and declarations so testified to by the defendant were material matter in and to the investigation and were not true but false, and were not by the defendant believed to be true but were believed by him to be false.

The indictment fulfills the requirements of R.S. § 5396, 18 U.S.C.A. § 558. The charge is explicit, complete, and without substantial ambiguity. It is not necessary that an indictment set forth a myriad of detail, or that it satisfy every objection which human ingenuity may devise. It is enough if it charges every substantial element of the offense and at the same time apprises the accused of the charge against him in such manner that he can prepare his defense without being taken by surprise, and that he have the assurance that he will be protected against another prosecution for the same offense. Claiborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 77 F.2d 682. In an indictment for perjury the materiality of the perjured statement may be made to appear either by a general allegation of materiality, Markham v. United States, 160 U.S. 319, 16 S.Ct. 288, 40 L.Ed. 441, or by the pleading of facts showing materiality, Berry v. United States, 9 Cir., 259 F. 203.

It is claimed that the indictment does not disclose that the proceeding was of such a character as to be within the jurisdiction of the commission. The point here seems to be that the investigation was ex parte, and that there can be no perjury in a proceeding of that kind. The only case cited for this proposition is United States v. Rhodes, D.C., 212 F. 518, but see United States v. Coyle, D.C., 229 F. 256. Many cases are to be found in the books in which convictions for perjury were predicated on the giving of false testimony in ex parte investigations, and the point is obviously lacking in merit. See Markham v. United States, supra (testimony before pension examiner); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U.S. 139, 32 S.Ct. 71, 56 L.Ed. 128 (testimony before referee in bankruptcy); Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 14 S.Ct. 513, 38 L.Ed. 415 (testimony before officers of the Land Office); Hardwick v. United States, 9 Cir., 257 F. 505 (affidavit under selective service act); Seymour v. United States, 8 Cir., 77 F.2d 577, 99 A.L.R. 880 (testimony before Senate investigating committee).

The investigation in the course of which the alleged perjury occurred was held under §§ 19(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77s (b), 77t(a). It is claimed that § 20(a) is so unintelligible as to be unconstitutional. This section is quoted on the margin.¹ The argument is that the statute does not make clear to whom the words "such person" refer, there being no antecedent word for them to modify; and that this uncertainty leads to the further uncertainty as to what facts the commission is empowered to investigate. It is said that these words may refer to the person making complaint, to the person accused of violating the act, or to some one else. Because of this supposed constitutional infirmity, appellant asserts that the officer conducting the investigation had no jurisdiction and that the entire proceeding was void.

While § 20(a) is not a model of draftsmanship, we agree with counsel for the Government...