Grunewald v. United States
353 U.S. 391 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The duration of a criminal conspiracy cannot be extended for statute of limitations purposes by subsequent acts of concealment unless those acts were expressly part of the central criminal objectives of the original conspiratorial agreement. A subsidiary conspiracy to conceal cannot be implied from the mere fact that the conspiracy was kept secret or that conspirators took steps to cover their tracks after the main objectives were achieved.
Facts:
- In 1947 and 1948, two businesses, Patullo Modes and Gotham Beef Co., were under investigation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for suspected tax evasion.
- The businesses, through intermediaries, hired attorney Daniel Halperin to resolve their tax issues.
- Halperin negotiated with H. Murray Grünewald, who claimed he could use his influence with Henry W. Bolich, an official in the BIR, to prevent criminal prosecution.
- Grünewald was to be paid large cash fees—$100,000 by Patullo and $60,000 by Gotham—upon successfully stopping the prosecutions.
- Grünewald used his influence with Bolich to obtain 'no prosecution' rulings from the BIR for both companies, which were issued in October 1948 and January 1949.
- After the rulings were issued, the conspirators engaged in various activities to conceal their scheme, such as doctoring BIR reports and warning taxpayers and witnesses to remain silent.
- In 1951, a congressional committee began an investigation, and in 1952 a grand jury was convened, prompting the conspirators to intensify their efforts to hide their prior activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Grünewald, Halperin, and Bolich were charged in an indictment returned by a grand jury on October 25, 1954, with conspiracy to defraud the United States.
- Halperin was also charged with three counts of endeavoring to corruptly influence grand jury witnesses.
- Following a jury trial in the United States District Court, all three petitioners were convicted on the conspiracy count, and Halperin was also convicted on the witness-tampering counts.
- The petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, with Judge Frank dissenting.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
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 subsidiary agreement to conceal a conspiracy, occurring after the central criminal objectives have been accomplished, extend the duration of the original conspiracy for purposes of the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. After the central criminal purposes of a conspiracy have been attained, a subsidiary conspiracy to conceal may not be implied from circumstantial evidence showing merely that the conspiracy was kept secret and that the conspirators took steps to cover up their crime. Sanctioning such a theory would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations in conspiracy cases. The Court distinguished between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives (e.g., kidnappers hiding while awaiting ransom) and acts of concealment done after these objectives have been attained, for the sole purpose of covering up the crime. While the government presented a legally valid alternative theory—that the conspiracy's central goal was not just the 'no prosecution' rulings but total immunity for the taxpayers, which continued until the tax evasion statute of limitations ran in 1952—the conviction must be reversed because the trial judge's instructions to the jury were fatally flawed. The charge failed to distinguish between permissible acts of concealment (to achieve the conspiracy's main goal) and impermissible ones (merely to cover up a completed crime), allowing the jury to convict on an improper legal basis. Additionally, it was prejudicial error to permit the government to cross-examine Halperin about his prior invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury, as its minimal probative value for impeachment was far outweighed by the danger of the jury drawing an impermissible inference of guilt.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
I agree with the majority that the convictions should be reversed and that concealment after the conspiracy's main objectives are achieved does not extend the statute of limitations. While agreeing with the majority's reasoning on the conspiracy issue, this opinion takes a stronger, more absolute stance on the Fifth Amendment issue. The use of a defendant's claim of a constitutional privilege to discredit or penalize them is fundamentally indefensible and should never be permitted, regardless of special circumstances. The value of constitutional privileges is destroyed if individuals can be punished for relying on them. The prior case of Raffel v. United States, which allowed such impeachment, should be explicitly overruled.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the government's ability to prosecute conspiracy cases by limiting the 'continuing conspiracy' doctrine. It solidifies the principle from Krulewitch and Lutwak that the statute of limitations begins to run when the conspiracy's central objectives are achieved, and subsequent cover-up activities do not, by themselves, extend that period. The ruling forces prosecutors to prove with specific evidence that concealment was an original, central aim of the conspiracy, not merely an afterthought. This provides a crucial defense for individuals in conspiracy cases and prevents prosecutors from using the inherent secrecy of a crime to toll the statute of limitations indefinitely.
Unlock the full brief for Grunewald v. United States