United States v. Woodward
105 S. Ct. 611, 469 U.S. 105, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 29 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Cumulative punishments for multiple statutory offenses arising from the same conduct are permissible if each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not, and if congressional intent does not clearly indicate otherwise.
Facts:
- On March 1, 1980, Charles Woodward and his wife arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Brazil.
- Customs officials provided Woodward with a form asking if he or any family member was carrying over $5,000 in monetary instruments.
- Woodward checked the 'no' box on the customs form in response to the question.
- After a brief questioning, as customs officials escorted Woodward to a search room, he informed an official that he and his wife were carrying over $20,000 in cash.
- Woodward then removed approximately $12,000 from his boot.
- Another $10,000 was discovered in a makeshift money belt concealed under his wife’s clothing.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Woodward was indicted on charges of making a false statement to a US agency (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and willfully failing to report carrying over $5,000 into the United States (31 U.S.C. §§ 1058, 1101).
- A jury convicted Woodward on both charges in the District Court (the trial court).
- Woodward received a sentence of six months in prison on the false statement count and a consecutive 3-year term of probation on the currency reporting count.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Woodward's conduct could not be punished under both statutes and reversed his felony conviction for making a false statement. The United States was the appellant, and Woodward was the appellee.
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 Congress intend to permit cumulative punishment for an individual who makes a false statement to a federal agency (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and also willfully fails to report carrying more than $5,000 in currency into the United States (31 U.S.C. §§ 1058, 1101), where the same conduct forms the basis of both charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, Congress intends to permit cumulative punishment for an individual who makes a false statement to a federal agency and also willfully fails to report carrying more than $5,000 in currency into the United States, even when the same conduct underlies both charges. The Court concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals plainly misapplied the Blockburger rule, which determines congressional intent for cumulative punishment. Proof of a currency reporting violation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 1058, 1101 does not necessarily include proof of a false statement offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Section 1001 can proscribe nondisclosure only if a material fact is 'concealed by any trick, scheme, or device,' or through an affirmative false statement. A person could willfully fail to file a currency report without making a false statement or using a trick, for example, if they were never asked the question. Furthermore, Congress, when enacting the currency reporting law, explicitly referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and did not indicate that the two statutes could not be applied together, thus suggesting an intent for separate punishment. The Court also noted that the two statutes are 'directed to separate evils': the currency reporting statute aims to develop records useful in investigations, while the false statement statute protects government agency functions from deceptive practices.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Blockburger test for cumulative punishment, reinforcing that courts must carefully examine the distinct elements required for each offense and discern congressional intent beyond superficial similarities in conduct. It illustrates that a mere willful omission to report may not satisfy the specific 'trick, scheme, or device' element often required for concealment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, distinguishing it from an affirmative false statement. The decision underscores the importance of considering statutory purposes when legislative intent is ambiguous regarding multiple punishments, allowing separate convictions when statutes address different societal harms.
