Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Johnson v. United States

Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457 (1913)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1913-04-28
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding, pre-Fisher, that books and records produced under Harris could be used in a criminal proceeding
  • under Fifth Amendment “[a] party is privileged from producing the evidence, but not from its production”
  • A party is privileged from producing the evidence but not from its production.
  • “a party is privileged from producing the evidence, but not from its production.... [he may not] keep the protection from the introduction of documentary evidence that he would have had while he retained it, after the title and possession have gone to someone else”
  • documents in possession of bankruptcy trustee

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Johnson v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
157 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Bankruptcy Law — Trustee Powers A bankruptcy court may require the transfer of a bankrupt's books to the trustee, and such a transfer is compelled by law as a necessary incident to the distribution of the bankrupt's property, not for the purpose of obtaining criminal evidence against him. Matter of Harris, 221 U.S. 274
  2. Constitutional Law — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination A party is privileged from producing evidence against himself but not from the production of evidence; the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to bar the introduction of documentary evidence obtained from a third party into whose hands it has come alio intuitu, and the use of such evidence in court does not compel the defendant to be a witness against himself.
  3. Constitutional Law — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination A criminal defendant cannot protect himself from the introduction of documentary evidence by placing the legal title to the documents in another, and the privilege against self-incrimination does not bar the use of documentary evidence against him after title and possession have passed to a third party, even where the transfer was compelled by law against his will. Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478
  4. Evidence — Sufficiency of the Evidence On appeal from a conviction, where there is evidence tending to support the finding and no certificate that all the evidence is in the record, an appellate court is not warranted in declaring as a matter of law that the Government did not make out a case. Seigel v. Cartel, 164 F. 691
JOHNSONv. UNITED STATES,228 U.S. 457(1913)
33 S.Ct. 572
JOHNSONv. UNITED STATES.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 715.
Argued April 11, 1913.
Decided April 28, 1913.
Courts proceed step by step.Matter of Harris,221 U.S. 274, established simply that the transfer of books of the bankrupt to the trustee could be required, and left undetermined the question of use to which the books could be put. A party is privileged from producing his books in a prosecution against himself but is not privileged from their production. A criminal cannot protect himself by getting the legal title to corporate books.Wheelerv.United States,226 U.S. 478. The production of a documentary confession by a third person, into whose hands it has comealio intuitu, does not compel the witness to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. On appeal from a conviction, where there is evidence tending to support the finding and no certificate that all the evidence is in the record, this court is not warranted in declaring, as matter of law, that the Government did not make out a case.
THE facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Edward J. Fox, with whomMr. Robert A. StotzandMr.James W. Foxwere on the brief, for plaintiff in error.Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr, with whomMr.Solicitor General Bullittwas on the brief, for the United States.Page 458
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an indictment for concealing money from the defendant's trustee in bankruptcy. The defendant was convicted and sentenced subject to exceptions which raised in different forms the questions whether his books properly were admitted against him and whether the evidence warranted the verdict.

On the first point the facts are simply that the books had been transferred to the trustee in accordance with § 70 of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898,30 Stat. 544, c. 541, and were produced before the grand jury and before the petit jury at the trial. That the transfer lawfully could be required is established byMatter of Harris,221 U.S. 274. But the defendant lays hold of an expression in that case, `the properly careful provision to protect him from use of the books in aid of prosecution,' as an intimation that the books could not be put to such a use.

Courts proceed step by step. And we now have to consider whether the cautious statement in the former case marked the limit of the law in a case where no rights, if there were any, were saved when the books were transferred. The answer was implied in that decision. A party is privileged from producing the evidence but not from its production. The transfer by bankruptcy is no different from a transfer by execution of a volume with a confession written on the fly leaf. It is held that a criminal cannot protect himself by getting the legal title to corporate books.Wheelerv.United States,226 U.S. 478. But the converse proposition is by no means true, that he may keep the protection from the introduction of documentary evidence that he would have had while he retained it, after the title and possession have gone to some one else.

It is true that the transfer of the books may have beenPage 459against the defendant's will, but it is compelled by the law as a necessary incident to the distribution of his property, not in order to obtain criminal evidence against him. Of course a man cannot protect his property from being used to pay his debts by attaching to it a disclosure of crime. If the documentary confession comes to a third handalio intuitu, as this did, the use of it in court does not compel the defendant to be a witness against himself.

As to the question of evidence, it is enough to say that there was evidence tending as far as it went to show that the defendant foresaw what was coming and attempted to save something from the wreck. There is no certificate that all the evidence is before us, and we should not be warranted in declaring as matter of law that the Government did not make out a case. SeeSeigelv.Cartel, 164 F. 691.Judgment affirmed.