GRUNEWALD v. U.S.
352 U.S. 866 (1956)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

GRUNEWALD v. U.S. , 352 U.S. 866 (1956)

352 U.S. 866

Henry W. GRUNEWALD, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 183.

Max HALPERIN, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 184.

Daniel A. BOLICH, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 186.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 15, 1956

Page 352 U.S. 866 , 866

The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are granted limiting the questions to those enumerated below:

(a) No. 183:

    '1. Whether a conviction of a conspiracy to procure from the Fraud Bureau of the Internal Revenue Department a decision not to prosecute a tax fraud, where the object of the conspiracy had been accomplished by January, 1949, and prosecution was barred under the statute of limitations by January, 1952, may be sustained, on the theory that the conspiracy must have included a continuing agreement to conceal-the indictment having been found October 25, 1954, and the proof being that one or more of the conspirators in March, 1952, attempted to cover their tracks from investigators.
    '2. Whether independent acts of alleged conspirators, after the accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy and done without the knowledge or the participation of the petitioner Grunewald, may suffice to support a charge against him that the original conspiracy included a continuing purpose to conceal so that the conspiracy might be deemed to extend down to the last act of concealment.
    '3. Whether an alleged continuing conspiracy to conceal could be found as to the petitioner Grunewald, when he was concerned only with the original object of the conspiracy and was acquitted by the Trial Court on three counts of attempting to influence witnesses, which the Court charged the jury could be acts of continuing concealment.
    '4. Whether a purpose to continue to conceal the accomplishment of the primary conspiracy may be inferred from the fact that the conspirators would be pre-

    Page 352 U.S. 866 , 867

    sumed to know that their activities would always be open to investigation- whether a subordinate conspiracy to conceal may be implied from the original crime.

    '5. Whether the Trial Court committed error in permitting the jury to find a continuing conspiracy to conceal from the fact that, more than three years after and object of the conspiracy had been accomplished, the petitioner Grunewald, when his secretary was subpoenaed before a grand jury, told her she need not answer various questions and could say she forgot.
    '6. Whether the Trial Court committed error in permitting the defendant Halperin, the only witness for the defense, to be cross-examined, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, on the fact that he had been, prior to the trial, subpoenaed before a grand jury and had there claimed his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination on a long line of questions. The constitutional privilege thus infringed is that part of the Fifth Amendment which reads '... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..."?

No. 184:

    '1. When a defendant testifies in his own defense at his trial, and his answers to questions show that, although averring his innocence, he was justified in invoking the Fifth Amendment with regard to like questions before a Grand Jury-as in this case all agree-is not that defendant denied due process when the Government on cross-examination brings out before the trial jury, the fact that he refused to answer the questions before the Grand Jury, upon such constitutional grounds?
    '2. When a defendant has been subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury in an investigation, of which he is a primary target, has claimed his Constitutional privilege, advised the Grand Jury that he was doing so as an innocent man ensnared in suspicious circumstances and because he could not cross-examine or be represented [352 U.S. 866 , 868]


    Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.