Dunn v. United States
442 U.S. 100 (1979) (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a statement to be considered made in a "proceeding ancillary to any court or grand jury" under the federal false declarations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, the context must possess a degree of formality comparable to a formal deposition. An informal, sworn interview in a private attorney's office that lacks procedural safeguards does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- Robert Dunn testified before a federal grand jury under a grant of immunity regarding illicit drug activity at a penitentiary where he was incarcerated.
- Dunn's grand jury testimony implicated a fellow inmate, Phillip Musgrave, in several drug-related offenses.
- Several months later, Dunn went to the office of Musgrave's attorney, Michael Canges.
- In the presence of Canges and a notary public, Dunn gave an oral statement under oath in which he recanted his grand jury testimony that implicated Musgrave.
- Canges subsequently submitted a transcript of Dunn's sworn statement to the court in support of a motion to dismiss the indictment against Musgrave.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Dunn was indicted in federal district court on five counts of making false declarations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
- At trial, Dunn moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the September 30 statement was not made in an 'ancillary proceeding.'
- The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted Dunn on three of the five counts.
- Dunn (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the lawyer's office interview was not an ancillary proceeding, a subsequent evidentiary hearing where Dunn adopted the statement was, and the difference was a nonprejudicial variance.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sworn statement given during an informal interview in a private attorney's office, which lacks the procedural safeguards of a formal deposition, constitute a "proceeding ancillary to any court or grand jury" under the federal false declarations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. A sworn statement given during an informal interview in a private attorney's office does not constitute a 'proceeding ancillary to any court or grand jury' under 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The term 'proceeding' implies a degree of formality that was absent from the interview. The legislative history of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 shows that Congress intended 'ancillary proceeding' to cover events like pretrial depositions, which have procedural safeguards, not informal interviews. The interview with Dunn lacked any such safeguards: there was no court order, no formal notice to Dunn, no notification of his right to counsel, and no certification of the transcript by Dunn. Construing the statute broadly to include such informal settings would violate the principle of lenity, which requires that criminal statutes be interpreted narrowly and that individuals not be forced to speculate about whether their conduct is prohibited.
Analysis:
This decision narrows the scope of the federal false declarations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, clarifying that its relaxed evidentiary standards apply only to statements made in contexts with significant procedural formality. By distinguishing between formal depositions and informal sworn interviews, the Court limits the government's ability to use the 'inconsistent declarations' method of proof, which does not require proving which statement was false. Consequently, for false statements made in less formal settings, prosecutors must rely on the traditional perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which carries a higher burden of proof. This ruling reinforces the rule of lenity, ensuring criminal liability is imposed only for conduct plainly and unmistakably proscribed by statute.
