United States v. Yermian
468 U.S. 63, 104 S.Ct. 2936, 82 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency does not require the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of that federal jurisdiction. The statute only requires proof that the defendant knowingly and willfully made the false statement.
Facts:
- In 1979, Esmall Yermian was hired by Gulton Industries, a defense contractor, for a job requiring a Department of Defense Security Clearance.
- Gulton's security officer provided Yermian a 'Worksheet For Preparation of Personnel Security Questionnaire' to complete.
- On the worksheet, Yermian falsely stated he had never been charged with a violation of law, concealing a 1978 mail fraud conviction.
- Yermian also provided a false employment history, listing two companies that had never employed him.
- These false representations were typed by the security officer onto a 'Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire.'
- Yermian reviewed the typed document and signed a certification affirming his answers were true and acknowledging that false statements could subject him to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- Gulton's security officer then mailed the signed questionnaire to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office for processing.
- Government investigators subsequently discovered Yermian's false statements.
Procedural Posture:
- Esmall Yermian was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- At trial, the District Court rejected Yermian's proposed jury instruction requiring proof of actual knowledge of federal jurisdiction.
- Instead, the court instructed the jury that the government must prove Yermian 'knew or should have known' the information would be submitted to a government agency.
- A jury found Yermian guilty on all counts.
- Yermian, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, holding that the statute requires the government to prove the defendant knew the statement was made in a matter within federal agency jurisdiction.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
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 conviction for making a false statement 'in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States' under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 require the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the federal agency's jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. A conviction under § 1001 does not require the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. The plain language of the statute separates the jurisdictional element from the conduct element. The terms 'knowingly and willfully' modify only the making of 'false, fictitious or fraudulent statements,' not the jurisdictional prerequisite that the statement be made 'in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.' Citing United States v. Feola, the court affirmed that the existence of a fact conferring federal jurisdiction need not be known by the actor. The legislative history further supports this reading, as Congress in 1934 deliberately removed specific intent language from the statute's predecessor to broaden its scope beyond merely defrauding the government, indicating a choice not to require actual knowledge of the federal nexus.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The government should be required to prove the defendant had actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. The statute's language and grammatical construction are ambiguous as to whether 'knowingly and willfully' modifies only the act of making a false statement or also the jurisdictional circumstance. The legislative history does not clearly show that Congress intended to eliminate the culpability requirement regarding the federal nexus; rather, it suggests Congress only intended to eliminate the narrow requirement of pecuniary loss to the government. Given this ambiguity, the rule of lenity should apply, resolving the statute's scope in favor of the defendant and requiring proof of actual knowledge to avoid criminalizing a broad range of conduct where the defendant is unaware of any federal involvement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the mens rea requirement for 18 U.S.C. § 1001, making prosecutions easier by lowering the government's burden of proof. By treating federal jurisdiction as a strict liability element, the Court expands the statute's reach to cover false statements made to private or state entities where the maker is unaware of a federal connection, such as federal funding or oversight. This precedent reinforces the principle that jurisdictional elements in federal criminal statutes generally do not require a culpable mental state, placing the burden on individuals to ensure the truthfulness of their statements in any formal or regulated context.
