Brogan v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=January 26, 1998 |case_treatment=No |facts=Federal agent had accused a union official of receiving cash fr...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=Supreme Court of the United States | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|date=January 26, 1998 | |date=January 26, 1998 | ||
|facts=Federal agent had accused a union official of receiving cash from their corporate bosses. The union official denied this whereupon he was prosecuted by his denial under the '''False Statements Act'''. | |facts=Federal agent had accused a union official of receiving cash from their corporate bosses. The union official denied this whereupon he was prosecuted by his denial under the '''False Statements Act'''. | ||
|procedural_history=The defendant raised the "exculpatory no" as a defense. | |procedural_history=The defendant raised the "exculpatory no" as a defense. |
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
Brogan v. United States | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | January 26, 1998 |
Facts
Federal agent had accused a union official of receiving cash from their corporate bosses. The union official denied this whereupon he was prosecuted by his denial under the False Statements Act.
Procedural History
The defendant raised the "exculpatory no" as a defense.
Holding
Lower federal courts had exceeded their authority by creating an "exculpatory no" exception.
Reasons
Based on the Court's reasoning, the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply here.
Rule
According to the "exculpatory no" doctrine, simply denying guilt to federal investigators isn't a felony.