United States v. Charles G. Nickels
502 F.2d 1173 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal defense of duress is not available to a defendant charged with perjury for false testimony given before a grand jury, even if the testimony was compelled by a threat of job loss under a potentially unconstitutional employment rule.
Facts:
- From 1964 to 1966, Charles G. Nickels was a Chicago police officer assigned to the 18th District Vice Squad.
- The Chicago Police Department had a rule, Rule 51, which required officers to give evidence before a grand jury or face termination.
- Between January 1965 and May 1966, Nickels and other officers, including Joseph Dawson and John Cello, regularly received and divided monthly cash payoffs from gambling interests and tavern keepers.
- The payoffs were secretly divided among sixteen members of the vice squad at the Olympic Hotel.
- On one occasion, Martin B. Brody, the hotel keeper, gave a police officer $75 in Nickels' presence to "keep the vice squad away."
- On a separate occasion, Brody gave Nickels $75 directly.
- Nickels was later called to testify under oath before a federal grand jury investigating police corruption.
- During his testimony, Nickels declared that he had never received any money from any person while in the performance of his duties as a police officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles G. Nickels was indicted by a federal grand jury for making a false declaration before the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
- In the U.S. District Court (trial court), Nickels moved to suppress his grand jury testimony, arguing it was given under duress due to Police Department Rule 51.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- The case proceeded to a trial by jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The district court sentenced Nickels to 18 months in prison.
- Nickels, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 police department rule compelling an officer to testify before a grand jury under threat of job termination provide a defense of duress to a subsequent charge of perjury for false statements made during that testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Cummings, Circuit Judge
No, a police department rule compelling testimony does not provide a defense of duress against a perjury charge. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not grant a witness the license to commit perjury. The court, citing its prior holding in United States v. Devitt, reasoned that there is no justification for extending constitutional protections to shield a witness from prosecution for knowingly giving false testimony. The court also held that the common law defense of duress is only applicable when a defendant reasonably fears immediate death or serious bodily injury, a standard that the threat of job loss does not meet. While a witness may be faced with the difficult choice of testifying truthfully, invoking the Fifth Amendment, or facing job loss, committing perjury is not a permissible option.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that compelled testimony does not excuse perjury. It clarifies that a witness facing unconstitutional coercion (like a threat of job loss for invoking the Fifth Amendment) has remedies, such as challenging the coercion or seeking to suppress truthful incriminating statements, but committing a new crime of perjury is not one of them. The ruling significantly narrows the availability of the duress defense in perjury prosecutions, establishing that economic or professional pressure is insufficient to meet the high threshold of immediate fear of death or serious bodily harm. This precedent reinforces the sanctity of the oath and ensures that witnesses cannot use external pressures as a shield for intentionally deceiving a grand jury.
