Garner v. United States
47 L. Ed. 2d 370, 424 U.S. 648, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 138 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's incriminating disclosures on a tax return are not considered 'compelled' self-incrimination and can be used against them in a later criminal prosecution if the defendant failed to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege on the return itself. The privilege must be asserted at the time of disclosure to be effective.
Facts:
- Roy Garner was involved in a criminal conspiracy related to illegal sports betting.
- Garner's role was to provide inside information for the scheme.
- For the tax years 1965, 1966, and 1967, Garner filed his federal income tax returns.
- On his 1965 return, Garner listed his occupation as 'professional gambler.'
- On all three returns, he reported substantial income from 'gambling' or 'wagering.'
- Garner did not assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for any of this information when he filed the returns.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government indicted Roy Garner in federal district court for conspiracy to fix sporting contests and other related offenses.
- At trial, the government introduced Garner's tax returns as evidence, and Garner's Fifth Amendment objection was overruled.
- A jury found Garner guilty.
- Garner, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the admission of his tax returns violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
- An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Garner (appellee), holding that his failure to claim the privilege on his returns defeated his claim.
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 the introduction of a defendant's tax returns as evidence in a non-tax-related criminal prosecution violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, when the defendant voluntarily disclosed the incriminating information on the returns instead of claiming the privilege at the time of filing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. A defendant who discloses incriminating information on a tax return instead of claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege at that time has not been 'compelled' to incriminate himself and cannot later invoke the privilege to prevent the use of those disclosures in a criminal prosecution. The Court reasoned that the general principle is that if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the government has not compelled him to incriminate himself. Unlike situations involving custodial interrogation (Miranda) or statutes targeting 'inherently suspect' groups (Marchetti), the income tax system is a neutral self-reporting scheme directed at the public at large. A taxpayer retains a 'free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer,' and must affirmatively claim the privilege on the return itself. The possibility of prosecution for failing to file a return does not constitute compulsion because a valid claim of privilege is a defense to such a charge.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No. The threat of prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 for failure to file a return does not compel incriminating disclosures in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This is because the statute requires a 'willful' failure, and an erroneous claim of privilege made in 'good faith' would be a defense to prosecution. This good-faith protection ensures the taxpayer retains a free choice between disclosing information and claiming the privilege, meaning any disclosure is not compelled. The concurrence would not have reached the majority's broader conclusion about what would happen if a good-faith claim were not a defense, believing that in such a circumstance, the taxpayer's choice would be coerced.
Analysis:
This case establishes the critical 'claim it or lose it' principle for the Fifth Amendment privilege in the context of self-reporting statutes like the tax code. It clarifies that the government's requirement to file a return does not automatically render all disclosures on that return 'compelled' for Fifth Amendment purposes. The decision places the burden squarely on the individual to assert the privilege at the time of disclosure, distinguishing neutral regulatory schemes from more coercive situations like custodial interrogation or statutes aimed at criminal activity. This reinforces the idea that the privilege is a shield to be actively raised, not a passive protection that automatically invalidates the later use of voluntarily provided information.
