# Opposition Brief — Macke v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1055%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1947
- **Citation:** 331 U.S. 810

## Text

Bkeubont :

CITATIONS

Brady v. United States, 24 F. 2d 399
Brown v. United States, 150 U. 8. 93

7, 9, ” 13,14
ll

16
ll

15
12

10
ll

15

Les A AR OE BT ae

i
\

Cases—Continued
United States v. Kaiser, 188 F, 2d 219, certiorari denied, 320

Page
Wy, BBR, ona onc ciee cn arena pete cach ence nenneg 10
13

‘United States v. Novick, 271 U. 8. 201..............-----
United Staies v. Scharton, 285 U. 8. 518... ......-..----- 12,18
United States v. Zeulé, 187 F. 24845_..........-..---.-- 11

Statutes:
Act of August 24, 1942, c. 555, 56 Stat. 747:
Section 1 (as amended July 1, 1944, 58 Stat. 649, 667,
18 U. 8. C., Supp. V, 800a).......-....-...-.-25 4,11
Alien Registration Act, 1940 (Act of June 28, 1940, c. 439,

ee. OS GO). ov cdc iia 20d ccc ae

| ay Pee eee Herma er ee S| 2,12
Section 1044 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the
Act of December 27, 1927, 45 Stat. 51, 18 U.S.C. 582. 4, 10, 11
Miscellaneous: ‘
H, Rep. 2051, 77th Cong., 2d sess_..........-. -.------ 13
Regulations governing the registration of aliens under the
Alien Registration Act, 1940 (5 F. R. 2836-2841):

5 | ener ene ens ee Tere. 5
© 9O.6 @ (0G... 22... nn sadn n end ee oe 5
OE Se Raper ee eee een nenn oe “ 6
S. Rep. 1544, 77th Cong., 2d sess... .....-.-..----.---- 13

No. 1113

Orro HERMANN WILHELM Macks, sien Jo-
HANNA MULLER AND Inm@aRp STuRN, PETI-
TIONERS

ei v.

Unttep States or AMERICA Fe es

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT :

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the circuit court of appeals
(R. 553-555) has not yet been reported. -

JURISDICTION
S

The judgment of the cireuit court of appeals
was entered February 7, 1947 (R. 555). The peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari was filed March 10,
1947. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
under Section 240 (a) of the Judicial Code, as
amended by the Act of February 13, 1925. See~-

2
also Rules 37 (b) (2) and 45 (a) of the Federal _
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1. Whether the defense that prosecution of the
petitioners was barred by the statute of limita-
tions is open to them in this Court, no plea or
defense to that effect having been interposed
below; and, in any event, whether the general
three-year statute of limitations is applicable to
the offense charged in the indictment.

2. Whether the trial court’s instructions to the
jury were deficient in failing to distinguish be-
tween the Government’s direct proof of a con-
spiracy and the proof adduced through pr--trial
admissions and cross-examination of petitioners.

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

The conspiracy statute (Section 37 of the Crim-
inal Code; 18 U. S. C. 88) provides:

If two or more persons conspire either to
commit any offense against the United
States, or to defraud the United States in
any manner or for any purpose, and one or
more of such parties do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties
to such conspiracy shall be fined not more
than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than
two years, or both.

The pertinent provisions of the Alien Regis-
tration Act, 1940 (Act of June 28, 1940, e. 439,

Title III, 54 Stat. 670, 679-670; 8.0. 8. C.

3

"gnc. BL wacaiea

SC eebee vials tale
States], and (3) remains in the United
States for thirty days or longer, to apply
for registration and to be fingerprinted be-
fore ” ne of denen eens at ’

aan 33. (a) All pa Srersaig 7 -
tration and fingerprinting under section 31
shall be made at post offices or such other
places as may be designated by the Com-
missioner [of Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion].

- am > * -

Sec. 34. (a) The Commissioner is au-
thorized and directed to prepare forms for
the registration and fingerprinting of aliens
under this title. Such forms shall contain
inquiries with respect to (1) the date and
place of entry of the alien into the United
States; (2) activities in which he has been
and intends to be engaged; (3) the length
of time he expects to remain in the United
States; (4) the criminal record, ifvany, of
such alien; and (5) such additional mat-
ters as may be prescribed by the Commis-
sioner, with the approval of the Attorney
General.

SAR RS OE ae RRR OR Sn

4

Src: 36. * * * > . j

(c) Any alien * * * who files an
application. for - _registration containing
statements. known by him to be false, or
who procures or attempts to procure regis-
tration of himself or another person
through fraud, shall upon conviction
thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or
be imprisoned not more than six months, '
cme: - *

Section 1044 of the Revised Statutes as amended
by the Act of December 27, 1927, c. 6, 45 Stat. 51
(18 U. S. C. 582), provides:

Sec. 1044. No person shall be prose-
cuted, tried, or punished for any offense,
not capital, except as provided in section
1046 [18 U. S. C 584], unless the indictment
is found, or the information is instituted,
within three years next after such offense
shall have been committed: * * *

Section 1 of the Act of August 24, 1942, 56
Stat. 747, as amended by section 19 (b) of the
Act of July 1, 1944, 58 Stat. 649, 667 (18 U.S. C.,
Supp. V, 590a), provides:

The running of any existing statute of lim-
itations applicable to any offense against the
laws of the United States (1) involving de-
frauding or attempts to defraud the United
States or any agency thereof whether by con-
spiracy or not, and in any manner, or (2)
committed in connection with the negotia-
tion, procurement, award, performance, pay-

‘ ment for, interim financing, cancelation or

‘) is. comniatals with peas sr Gems”
_ tion of the present war, or-with any disposi-
tion of termination inventory by any war
contractor or Government agency, shall be
suspended until three years after the termi-
nation of hostilities in the present war as
. proclaimed by the President or by a con-
current resolution of the two Houses of
Congress. This section shall apply to acts,
offenses, or transactions where the existing
statute of limitations has not yet fully run,
but it shall not. apply to acts, offenses, or
transactions which are already barred by
provisions of existing law. .
The pertinent portions of the regulations govern-
ing the registration of aliens, issued by the Com-
missioner of Immigration and Naturalization on
August 8, 1940, with the approval of the Attorney
General (5 F. R. 2836-2841) read as follows:

§ 29.3 (a) Registration shall commence
on August 27, 1940. Any person in the
United States on that date who is required
to register and be fingerprinted, or to
register, may do so at any time on or before
December 26, 1940.

* * * OF); a

§ 29.4 (1) (10) The alien, if fourteen
years of age or older, shall’ state any activi-
ties in addition to his occupation im‘ which
he is, has been within the past five years,
or intends to be engaged. The alien shall

6
list the names ofall clubs, lodges, groups,
organizations, or societies to which he be-
longs or in’ which he participates. If the
alien holds any office or official position in
any of these clubs, lodges, groups, organi-
zations, or societies, he shall so state.

.
* * + * *

§ 29.4 (1) (15) The alien, if fourteen
years of age or older, shall state whether,
during the past five years, he has been
affiliated with or active in (a member of,
official of, a worker for) organizations, de-
voted in whole or in part to influencing or
furthering the political ‘activities, public
relations, or public policy of a foreign gov-
ernment. If the alien has been affiliated
with or active in any such groups or organ-
izations, he shall list them. If he holds an
office or official position in any such group
or organization, he shall so state. The
registration officer shall not undertake to
enumerate or define any such group or
organization, he shall so state. The regis-
tration officer shall not undertake to enu-
merate or define any such groups or
organizations.

STATEMENT

An indictment in one count was returned
against petitioners and 105 others in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on August 2, 1944, charging them with
conspiracy to defraud the United States, in viola-
tion of Section 37 of the Criminal Code, supra, p. 2
-(R. 4-18).

ee
States, No. 51, O. T. 1946, decided December 9,
1946. See pp. 6-14 of the brief for the United
States in that case.’ The indictment charged
that the defendants had conspired with certain
German consular officials to conceal the defend-
ants’ affiliation with and activities in the Nazi
party in the United States, and to defraud the
United States of its lawful governmental func-
tion of securing such information when the de-
fendants registered in 1940 under the Alien
Registration Act (R. 11-15).

Government witnesses testified as to the activi-
ties of the Nazi party in the United States spon-
sored and directed by German consular officials
here (R. 38-89, 134-154), the recruitment of
members and the collection of dues (R. 41-58),
and the festivities and meetings held under the
auspices of the German consulate (R. 70, 80, 139-
149, 194-197, 207-209). The Government’s evi-
dence further showed that petitioners’ names were

1 This was petitioners’ second trial on the same indictment.
In United States v. Ausmeier et al., 152 F. 2d 349, the con-
victions of petitioners and 14 others named in the indictment
were reversed because of errors in the instructions to the jury,
which were not repeated here (see R. 525-526). Thereafter,
when the case was called for retrial, the other defendants
pleaded guilty (R. 35-36) and only petitioners went to trial.

ete ENN NOY

asc antmnees

See oe NN BH

_ ‘
on the Consulate’s list of. party members,. that
they paid: dues. regularly and that. they hat been
sent invitations to Party festivities in this. coun~
try (RB. 67, 70+-72,. 75; 280, 358,. 357-358). It was
also shown that after the enactment of the Alien.
Registration Act of 1940 consular offieials sent
letters:to all persons on the list of party members;
including’ petitioners; requesting. them:to come to
the consulate (R..70-72,.74+75). These: members:
came to: the consulate in: groups (Ri 82-88, 152,
153), and were there given specific instructions.
as: to the form: of: the: answers: to be given in ré-+
sponse to certam questions in the alien: registra-
tion form (R. 88-87,.152). Asim the Fiswick
case, petitioners’ responses in their respective
registration forms followed: the instructions that
had: been giver by the consular officials: (R}.358-
359). In: response to Item: 15. of the form). ree
quiring: information as-to-any affiliation of the
registrant, within the: preceding: five years; with
organizations devoted: in: whole or im part to in-
fixencing or farthering the political activities, pub-
lic relations, or public: policy of a: foreign. govern
ment, each of: the: petitioners- wrote: (Macke, Ri.
378, 428; Muller, R. 474, 478; Sturn, R. 501-562) :
I:am a non-resident member of the Na-
tional Socialist German Workers: Party in
Germany [giving the date 1936 or 1937].
“ * * No activities in the United States:

The: Government: also: introduced as: against
petitioners individually (R. 362; see-infrayp; 14)

saiiie ad in Fiswictk. Hlowever, oni’ the crous-ex

amination of petitioners, who took the staid: in.

their own defense, certain’ additional evidence was

adduced whieh was not present in the Fiswiek case.

For example;: petitioners testified that they had
joined the Nazi‘ party in: the United States and
were members during. the period covered by theit
answers in‘ their registration forms: (Macke, RB.
407, 411-412, 426; Muller, R: 472-473; Sturn,’ R.
502) ; that they paid dues(Macke, -R. 426; Muller,
R. 473, 474; Sturn, RB. 501) and attended party
functions (Macke, R. 416-417, 419-421, 424-425;
Muller, R..473,-474;. Sturn, R. 497-499); and, in
effect, that their responses to Item 15-of the regis-
tration form’were false (Macke, ‘R. 414-415, 424,
429; Muller, R: 478; Sturn, R. 502). Moreover;
Macke testified that, acting under instructions the
Garnian' cétisublr’ offitialy hind ‘givéii ‘him in’ 1941,
he destroyed his party book and pins. (R. 418);
and ' Muller testified that ' she receiveda* slip’ of
paper frorti’ the’ constilar’ officials instietirig” her
how to-answer Item 165 of the registration’ form
which she used and’ then destroyed ‘after’ filling
out thé form’ (RY 476-477: cf. Stirh‘at B.°502).

arent - T= 8 na <TR CR OIE SRS ROOT

Governinast’s! due’ th elie wid tlieenadadaly

oot A RII Am =:

10

Petitioners were found guilty by the jury (R. 3,
530), and were sentenced as follows: Macke, to
imprisonment for three months; Muller, to im-
prisonment for six months; and Sturn, to im-
prisonment for 30 days (R. 3, 589-544). On ap-
peal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, the convictions were affirmed
(R. 555).

ARGUMENT

1. Petitioners’ first contention (Pet. 10-11) is
that the prosecution was barred by the three-year
statute of limitations (18 U. 8S. C. 582, supra, p.
4). As petitioners concede, no such plea for
defense was raised in the trial court (Pet. 8), and
it does not appear that the contention was raised
in the court below (see R. 546, 548, 550, 553-555).
Consequently, the asserted bar of limitations can-
not be advanced here. It is settled that if any
matter of defense or other matter which might
operate to bar or abate prosecution is not raised
in the trial court, it may not thereafter be raised
for the first time on appeal or otherwise.? And

* See, e. g., Miller v. United States, 41 App. D. C. 52,
certiorari denied, 231 U. S. 755 (former jeopardy) ; Brady v.
United States, 24 F. 2d 399, 405 (C. C. A. 8) (same);
United States v. Ginsburg, 96 F.2d 882, 885-886 (C. C. A.7),
certiorari denied, 805 U. S. 620 (entrapment); United
States v. Kaiser, 188 F.2d 219 (C. C. A. 7), certiorari denied, °
320 U. S. 801 (same) ; Powers v. United States, 223 U. S. 308,
312 (objections to method of summoning or empaneling
grand jury); Burchett v. United States, 194 Fed. 821, 825
(C. C. A. 4) (same) ; Hagner v. United States, 54 F. 2d 446,

ll .

plieability of the statute of limitations. \Forth-
offer v. Swope, 103 F. 2d 707, 709 (O..0. A. 9);
Capone v. Aderhold, 65 F. 2d 120, 131 (©. 0. A.
5); Pruett v. United States, 3°F. 2d 353, 354
(C. 0. A. 9). | | |
In any event, the prosecution was not barred

the statute of limitations. It is conceded that,
as petitioners assert (Pet. 10), the conspiracy
charged in the indictment must be deemed to have
terminated upon the filing of the alien registra-
tion forms in 1940 (see Fiswick v. United States,
supra, slip opinion, pp. 4-5). However, we
disagree with petitioners’ conelusion that the
three-year statute of limitations (18 U. 8. C. 582,
supra, p. 4) applies rather than the broader
period of limitation provided by special wartime
legislation (18 U. 8. C., Supp. V, 590a, supra,
pp. 4-5). Petitioners’ conclusion is predicated on
the assertions that since the Alien Registration
Act of 1940 provided no penalty for defrauding
the United States by filing a false registration

447-449 (App. D. C.), affirmed on other grounds, 285 U, S.
427 (venue) ; Gowling v. United States, 64 F, 2d 796, 798
(C. C. A. 6) (same) ; United States v. Zeuli, 187 F. 2d 845,
847 (C. C. A. 2) (same); Jackson v. United States, 72 F. 2d
764, 765 (C. C. A. 8) (defense that defendant charged with
embezzlement as custodian of bankrupt estate was not the
custodian).

* The signing of such forms was the only overt act alleged
as to petitioners (R. 16, 17). Other overt acts alleged to
have been committed by other defendants in 1942 (R. 17-18)
were not relied upon or established at the trial.

eee
ei th a ee

Be A Ig
statement, it would have been sufficient to plead =
and prove a’ conspitacy wilfully to file a pre
registration’ statenient, and that, therefore, the
allegations as to'defratiding the United States,
upon which the applicability of the special ex-
tension act depends, were mere surplusage. The
fallacy of this reasoning is that it misconceives the
gist of the offense charged in the indictment.
Petitioners were not. dharged with substantive
violations of or a conspiracy to violate the Alien
Registration Act. Had they been so charged, we
concede that the averments as to defrauding the
Government would not have been required or
warranted and could not, therefore, have brought
the case within the broader statute of limitations
which is applicable only to offenses involving
defrauding or attempt to defraud the United
States.’’ See United States v. Scharton, 285
U. 8. 518, cited by petitioners, which held to that

"effect with respect to an indictment under the

Revenue Act of 1926 for wilfully attempting to
evade taxes. Here, petitioners were indicted
under the second part of the conspiracy statute
(18 U. S. C. 88, supra, p. 2), which proscribes
any conspiracy ‘‘to defraud the United States in
any manner or for any purpose.’’ The defraud-
ing of the Government in the exercise of its lawful
functions (cf. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. 8. 462, 479-
480) was the gist of the offense charged. Con-
sequently, the case falls squarely within the class

of limitations: Ot: Miller. v. United States, 24,Fs 2a
358, 360-361. (C. ©.'A. 2), certiorari: denied, 276
U. 8. 638, in which the Second, Circuit, distin-
guished this Court’s decision in United States v.
Noveck, 271 U. 8. 201, the forerunner of. United
States v. Scharton, supra, on parallel reasoning.
See also H. Rep. 2051 and'S8. Rep. 1544, 77th
Cong., 2d sess. ; Fiswick v. United. States, ree
slip opinion, p. 4 and note 5. .

2. Petitioners’ second contention (Pet. 11-18) is
that the triel:court.arradt imide ipRenetians SOP
jury in that it—

made no distinction whateoerét bien
the evidence that had been produced by the
government in an effort to prove the exist-
ence of a conspiracy and the various ex-
hibits on which the names of the petitioners
appeared [the pre-trial statements] as well
as their testimony on the stand. It only
charged (R. p. 526) ‘‘if, on the other hand
you believe that the evidence adduced by
the government convinces you of the exist-
ence of a conspiracy in the filing of a false
registration known to. contain false and
material matter by these defendan then
your verdict must be guilty.” [Pet.12.] _

While the petition is not entirely clear, we believe
it in effect asserts that the quoted instruction was
erroneous in two respects: first,. it inferentially
permitted the jury to consider the pre-trial state-

of offenses with respect tow, the 9 ; olsen

OP BR! LY OT. PONTO

14

ments of each petitioner against the others; and,
second, it failed to point out that there was a
difference in the probative significance of the
Government’s evidence in chief directed to the
proof of the petitioners’ conspiratorial relations
and evidence having the same effect adduced on
cross-examination of the petitioners. Neither
contention appears to have been made in the court
below (see R. 546, 548, 550, 553-555).

In respect of the first proposition, petitioners
urge that this case is not substantially different
from Fiswick. However, in that case, as this
Court noted (slip opinion, pp. 6-8), the defend-
ants’ pre-trial admissions constituted the only
direct evidence establishing their conspiratorial
relations with the consular officials and among
themselves. In that particular setting, it was
deemed prejudicial for the trial judge to have
given the jury the concededly erroneous instruc-
tion that the pre-trial admissions of each defend-
ant were admissible against all. The instant case
is far different. As petitioners concede (Pet.
11), when the pre-trial statements were finally
admitted in evidence at the close of the Govern-
ment’s case, the trial judge properly admonished
the jury that they were to be considered only
against the particular petitioner to which they
reiated (R. 362). This affirmative cautionary in-
struction was never retracted or altered. And we
submit that petitioners’ assertion that the general
charge on conspiracy inferentially permitted the

15

jury to conclude otherwise is without foundation, —
particularly since the record does not show. that
the court was requested to re-instruct the jury on
this point in the course of his final charge at the
close of all the evidence (see R. 526-529). More-
over, there was direct evidence apart from the —
pre-trial statements that petitioners had gone to
the consulate and there received instructions as to
the answers to be given in their registrations.
Petitioner Muller made such an admission on
eross-examination. See p. 9, supra. That’ testi-
mony was, of course, admissible against all of the
petitioners. See Radin v. United States, 189
Fed. 568, 576 (C. C. A. 2), certiorari denied, 220
U. 8S. 623.

For similar reasons, petitioners’ second propo-
sition—that the trial judge should have instructed
the jury to treat evidence as -to the conspiracy
obtained by cross-examination of petitioners
differently from that offered by the Government
in its ease in chief—is without merit. No such
~ «The rule that pre-trial statements made by one defendant
after the offense has been committed, or after the termination
of the conspiracy, are not admissible against codefendants
applies only where such statements are made out of the pres-
ence of the codefendants who thus have no opportunity to
protest or question the statements. See Brown v. United
States, 150 U. S. 98, 98-99; Seeman v. United States, 90 F.
2d 88, 90 (C. C. A. 5), certiorari denied, 305 U. S. 620; Roma
v. United States, 53 F. 2d 1007, 1009 (C. C. A. 7) ; Dowdy v.
United States, 46 F. 2d 417, 425 (C. C. A. 4); Graham v.
United States, 15 F. 2d 740, 742-743 (C. C. A. 8), certiorari

denied, 274 U. S. 743; Johnson v. United States, 5 F. 2d.471,
475 (C. C. A. 4), certiorari denied, 269 U. S. 574.

16.

instruction was requested, nor would it have been
proper. The testimony elicited from petitioner
Muller on cross-examination was, as we have
noted, admissible against all of the petitioners.
That testimony, as well as other testimony elicited —
from petitioners which tended to reinforce the
Government’s case, had at least the same proba-
tive value as though it had come from other
witnesses. Cf. Freeman v. United States, 96 F.
2d 13, 15 (C. C. A. 5), certiorari denied, 305 U.S.
596; Radin v. United States, 189 Fed. 568, 576
(C. C. A. 2), certiorari denied, 220 U. S. 623. If
anything, Muller’s testimony, being that of a
defense witness, was binding upon the defense
and of greater probative significance than
similar testimony by a disinterested witness. Cf.
Cartello v. United States, 93 F. 2d 412, 415
(C. C. A. 8).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully sub-
mit that the petition for a writ of certiorari

should be me
GrorGe T. WASHINGTON,

Acting Solicitor General.
THERON L. CaUDLE,
Assistant Attorney General.
Rosert S. Erpau1,
/ SHELDON E, BernstErn,
Attorneys.

Aprit 1947.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1947

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1055%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.
