United States v. Robert v. Steinhilber
484 F.2d 386
8th Cir.
1973
Check Treatment

*2 GIBSON, Before ROSS, LAY and Cir- Judges. cuit Judge. ROSS, Circuit appeals Robert V. Steinhilber his con- viction, by jury, violating provi- sions of 15 The indict- § U.S.C. ment that Steinhilber made untrue statements of a material fact in a “Statement Department Record” filed with the Housing and Development, Urban agency of the United States of America. principal appeal issues on are whether the evidence was sufficient prove false, the statements were ¿the and, whether evidence was sufficient prove “knowingly that Steinhilber willfully” made false statements. Finding the evidence insufficient “knowingly willfully” statements, made false re-we entry verse and order the of a The two count indictment May 23, that on misrepresen- Steinhilber made identical tations, housing develop- relative Depart- ment he in, was involved Housing Develop- ment of and Urban keep will force this ‘shut We of Record” filed down’. In a ment. “Statement possi- you Government, informed as to the earliest availability date ble for installation. asked to “[s]tate supply supply whether do this contract in desire hold anticipated will population to serve the effect and soon as labor condi- an- the area.” Steinhilber *3 of will activate are we tions settled programming swered, part, “Current you proceed. work order for to will by village of for the installation calls drawings shop return tomorrow with capacity 304,000 of a a water with related data.” being gallons This tank is of water. by The letter was received Universal installa- scheduled for constructed and is 1969, May 7, 11, Univer- 1969. On June addition, the “In year.”, and tion this letter, by Hart, sal advised that Mr. arrangements village for fu- has applicable “with the ‘hold’status still Winnebago a source ture of Lake as use apparent contract, this and with no rec- plant purification is now of and a problem view, onciliation of the (Emphasis supplied.) being built.” only project can to this a less- allot empha- that The claims Government priority production er in our schedule preceding quota- portions of the sized proceed that with other work false, and were tions were ” . . . unencumbered. of made with falsity. their 1969, of April, near the 1st Sometime Village Winnebago developer Lake and the hous- of a of a Steinhilber was Corporation Eimco entered into a con- ing development known as Lake Winne- relationship whereby bago. tractual Eimco also on the Board Steinhilber was agreed Village incorporated to a water construct of Trustees of Village. plant engineering Winnebago. for of On March Lake planning project begun Winnebago was then Village en- Lake by Eimco. Eimco re- On contract with tered into a Universal Hart, Works, Inc., (Universal) ceived a from letter Jack written Tank Iron& Steinhilber, gallon at the 300,000 direction of for a dated the construction of May pertinent parts ground water tank. Thereafter above drawings” “engineering were almost identical let- function drawings” quoted prepared. ter to Universal above. “foundation was ordered fabrication Steel May a On Eimco wrote letter sur- tank. site tank was Winnebago Village of Lake stat- samples veyed, were taken soil ing continuing with are “[w]e to Uni- test results were submitted drawings particular and this ‘Hold’ will May 5, 1969, was versal. On not interfere with those all paid $2,790. the sum On same ” May 21, 1969, . On day to a letter written Universal approval 3, 1969, requested June Eimco direction Mr. Hart at the of Steinhil- shop drawings. July 14, 1969, On part: pertinent ber which said in acknowledged receipt writing you place to inform to “I am drawings approved. Fabrication for as gallon 304,000 water tank on a approximately to four take Stand-by until further ‘Hold Status’ months, September and one-half and on required This is due to labor notice. 4, 1969, a wire communi- Eimco directed conditions that now exist in the Kan- agent City inquir- to cation its Kansas n City . . sas area. . ing Winnebago proj- relative the Lake to try get like to ect : of strike. As bad as we would “Please advise status management ship done, the installation work there are Our is anxious to ” ‘nasty’ aspects quickly possible. strike On certain . Oc- required directed that have almost all in the tober a memo was agent building industry strictly home en- the Kansas relative begun, Winnebago job: waiting are construction Lake “We job. your that ac- now advice on while the contended Government begun equipment manufactured and tual at the have construction had storage charges will faced if we with time the statements were made. ship. cannot shipment?” the customer Will It is contention that Steinhilber’s phrases “being constructed” and subject mean- Neither the water tank nor the water are to two different built” ambiguous. purification plant, ings which were Con- to work are therefore conjunction each ever other, sequently, he contends “nega- placed Winnebago develop- at the Lake cumbent Government approximately interpretation April 1, From ment. tive a' October there was would make the defendant’s factually construction strike in v. Dio- labor the Kansas correct.” United States *4 (2d 1963). go, area. Cir. 907 States, also 410 See Johnson United v. cert, Sufficiency the Evidence (8th Cir.), denied, 396 F.2d 45 of 63, 24 90 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 72 U.S. properly As Steinhilber con (1969). argues, on the The Government cedes, our re standard of review with hand, only other accepted meaning had one gard that words challenges sufficiency to of to the it and therefore the evidence must be that which views to determine whether the light the evidence in most favorable by applying statements were false Government, to the with all the infer commonly meaning of the understood may properly ences which be drawn Seymour terms. See v. United g., See, therefrom. e. Glasser v. United (8th 1935). F.2d 77 584 Cir. 815 62 U.S. 86 (1942). L.Ed. But as we have often ques ambiguity We note the said: pertains tion because it to whether government “It is true that willfully” is “knowingly and entitled to the benefit of all reason- importance made false statements. The able to inferences be problem drawn from the aptly pointed of this out in govern- evidence. However, where the Diogo,1 supra, strong ment’s equally' evidence is at 906 n. 6: infer innocence of crime prosecutions . . “In representations . false guilt, it is to infer must verdict problem inter- of guilty be one of not and the court has preting is fre- statements duty to direct merged quently mens into issue of ”. Kelton, United States v. . rea. . . If a defendant has not (8th 1971). 446 F.2d 669, 671 Cir. intended, statement, his to assert Accord, United Williams, States v. proposition Government 1339,1343 (8th 1973). F.2d Cir. proved false, has to be then he cannot ordinarily, Throughout course, of to have said the trial of this case both ‘knowingly’ parties a false uttered statement. meanings attached different phrases “being ft constructed” and argued built”. Steinhilber undisputed It is the Government on the dates the statements were made required any reported areWe unaware of “knowingly”. decisions also use the word dealing provisions with the false statement this case was instructed false of consequence, 15 U.S.C. 1717. As a “willfully” § statement must be made both throughout opinion, this “knowingly”. we have made ref and does Government erence to challenge decisions based propriety other false the instruction. See, g., statutes. event, e. “willfully” § 18 U.S.C. we think term encompasses “knowingly” § U.S.C. differs somewhat element purposes from other false statement statutes in that of this statute. “willfully”, it uses the word but does not “knowing” tion, made the statement toit the evidence demonstrated that early untrue. As as 1875 the courts never intimated or Steinhilber prior making stated recognized this word Circuit false state- “knowingly” meant that the defendant ment that the tank and the water percep- placed working must have a “certain and clear not be order at development. falsity money tion of the of the claim made.” At that time paid surveys Bittinger, Universal, United had been F.Cas. (No. 14,599) (W.D.Mo.1875). made, Mr. the samples site had been soil taken, Justice had Blackmun a member of been steel had been while Court, ordered, engineering this reminded has that “careless- draw- ings equivalent or lack of Likewise, ness wisdom is not been started. regard falsity to the plant, ..” it is [a] design engineering Jacobs clear that work through May, And continued Court the month of appears emphasized: significantly has that the wa- “ purification plant eventually ter ‘Often the line between honest belief built. purposeful misrepresentation equal think, fine indistinct, significance, Of between two is the guilt innocence, testimony however lies or evenly regard meaning where the evidence is balanced officials with *5 guilt innocence, “being between and the “being a convic- words constructed” and ” Gay tion unequivo- cannot stand.’ v. United built”. Both officials cally government (8th Cir.), testified, witnesses, cert, denied, design engi- that such 90 S.Ct. activities U.S. (1969), Estep neering drawings part 24 L.Ed.2d quoting were of the “con- process”. gov- v. United struction But when the ernment counsel asked whether Univer- sal actually put together or Eimco had determining whether a the plant tank or the water falsity: made with of its at the time the statements made were is well established we “[i]t must negative. the officials answered in the meaning by look to the intended the strengthens This further Steinhilber’s [defendant], rather than to the inter- contention that his choice of was words pretation of the statements which the subject meanings. ambiguous, and to two make, . authorities did in fact primarily The Government’s ease interpretations or even to the placing rested on the two letters might reasonably the authorities have purification plant the water on .” United made. Diogo, supra, Stand-by a “Hold do not Status”. We 905-906.2 think, however, that these letters have Following principles, these we tendency that Steinhilber meaning hold that here the “knowingly” of the words lied some two and one-half question was and the Gov weeks later when he said the tank was negating ernment had the burden “being pu- constructed” and the “water claim that the defendant “did know plant” “being not rification built”. falsity of his statement at time clearly letter to Universal stated that product it was or that made, it was the the contract was not to be cancelled. accident, of an inadvertence, honest or importantly spoke And the letter essen- Bryson duress.” tially delaying installation, and it in- 69-70, 355, U.S. L. shop drawings dicated re- (1969). opinion, Ed.2d 264 In our day. evidence, turned the next This burden was not met. Without contradic- coupled with the fact that Universal did obviously do inquiry not mean is: what did the defendant mean meaning sug- must as conclusive the when he uttered the words? gested by the defendant at trial. Rather differing place of the tank on lead to inferences. One infer- not the construction 'production priority could have until ence that could be made and a lesser June accepted by de- been is that the leads us to the firm conclusion very dealings interpreted initial could fendant his construction by Eimco to mean that well have been understood “being May plant way con- tank and were be under “being and, Furthermore, built,” there- the Eimco structed” and very fore, not let- his statements to HUD were letter, similar to the Universal possess requi- ter, clearly stop did not did not “construc- false he process” by site mens rea. Another inference can tion as understood Steinhil- receipt days ber two after of the made and must have been found because “ jury, guilty ren- letter ‘hold’will since a verdict of Eimco wrote that the prepa- jury, in order to have been not continued dered. The interfere” with the drawings. shop have verdict, consistent with its must ration And May 23, 1969, concluded that the knew that evidence that on indicates continuing May tank and now drawings. by” constructed.” A work on the “hold status placed system on the water two weeks action, If this were a contract prior to the statements no actual might strictly be constrained to construe being performed “on at site” work was against This, Steinhilber’s words him. the time the defendant made the state- however, is a criminal Put sim- action. Quite conceivably, ments HUD. ply, we do not believe that the Govern- Kansas construction strike was proved beyond ment a reasonable doubt convenient for the defendant coincidence constructing to claim later that he was made false statements his answers system the water the state- time questions. prelimi- ments were based For ex- reasons hereinbefore nary accomplished matters his and that pressed, of conviction is *6 ambigu- in statements this context were reversed, and the trial court is ordered system ous. The fact that the water to enter a being delayed atwas and the least inform failure defendant to so (dissenting). GIBSON, Judge Circuit strong can HUD be viewed evidence as that the statements made were false respectfully majority’s dissent. The them to knew be however, precise, law is Further, could have disagreement false. my applica- lies properly that, despite considered even short, tion of law to this case. In given strike, the construction a “hold” majority holds that the District 5,May at defendant’s direction on duty acquittal Court had a to direct an 1969, on the fabrication of grounds on the evidence necessary factory, Eimco’s was not equally strong to infer innocence since offered circumstantial evidence on the phrases the Government diligent defendant’s A de- wilfullness. be false were so as to veloper certainly would have continued dicate that defendant could not have with fabrication of system, so requisite Implicit in mens rea. immediately it could be installed holding such a is conclusion that the after the construction was termi- strike jury has not made a infer- nated. “knowingly ence that the defendant wilfully” made false statements to the majority say, I cannot as the con- Department Housing De- and Urban cludes, that the Government’s evidence velopment (HUD). “equally strong to infer innocence phrases “being Concededly, con- of the crime to infer is guilt.” structed” built” and fac- Kelton, United v. 446 F. States tual (8th 1971) (emphasis circumstances case could 2d 671 Cir. 392

added). reviewing the record in this case, I find that the Government’s evi- ASSOCIATES, al., INC., NASH et & beyond dence a reasonable established Plaintiffs-Appellants, doubt that the statements made v. “wilfully false and that the defendant OHIO, INC., al., LUM’S OF et knowingly” false state- made these Defendants-Appellees. purpose of the state- ments. sole No. 73-1049. approval of ments was to HUD’s secure Appeals, United States Court predicated project. Approval was Sixth Circuit. existing representation of an fact Argued June system supply being constructed and Sept. 5, Decided completed fu- the near within be Obviously requirement ture. is dealing protection public in long prom- promoters who are performance. ises and short on reviewing

A court must the ev light in a idence most favorable

jury’s States, verdict. West v. United (8th 1966). 359 F.2d 54 Fur Cir.

ther, all conflicts in the evidence and all might

reasonable inferences rea

sonably drawn from the evidence must jury’s ver resolved favor of the Valez, United F.2d

dict. 431 (8th 1970); Cir. Holt, (8th Cir. Hanger 1970); F. cert, (8th denied,

2d 1968), Cir.

393 U.S. 22 L.Ed.2d (1969); Cross v. United (8th 1968); Aron v. Cir.

United jurisprudence Our inter concept democracy

woven with the *7 places accordingly reliance a

jury try The facts of each case. evidence, resolves conflicts deter questions fact,

mines a reaches question

verdict. of the defendant’s interpretation

wilfullness

contested statements involved factual de

terminations to resolve. jury’s inferences

the statements were false and that the wilfully accepted by

those statements should be

this Court. properly presented

Since the case jury by the District Court’s jury’s

structions, factual determina- tions should stand. affirm

judgment of conviction.