*1 UNITED STATES v. SHOTWELL MANUFACTUR CO. et

ING al. Argued No. 1. October 1957. Decided December *2 for

Philip argued Elman the cause States. United Rankin, Solicitor General Assistant the brief were On Rice, M. Joseph Leonard B. Sand and Attorney General Howard.

George B. argued respond- Christensen the cause him Ellis and ents. on the brief were Howard With T. Kirby. William opinion delivered

Mr. Harlan Justice Court.

This an presents question involving case unusual integrity of a criminal trial in federal courts.

The Solicitor has filed a motion in this General remand proceed- District Court for further ings. proffer This motion based of evidence into alleged possession have come Govern- petitioned for ment after the United States had certiorari setting review a decision of aside respondents. It conviction of the is claimed that such of Appeals evidence shows that the decision a perjurious based record attributable respondents. fraud of the appreciation

A proceedings clear of both the lower peculiar courts circumstances which the Government’s motion to an arises is essential under- standing why we believe the motion to remand must be granted. the respondents Frank Huebner, J. after jury trial States Court for the United District *3 willfully

Northern District Illinois, were convicted attempting evade the 1945 and 1946 corporate federal income taxes of Manufacturing Company.1 the Shotwell Prior to trial moved for dismissal of the indictment on voluntary timely the ground that their disclosure of these taxing tax derelictions to the authorities entitled them immunity prosecution from Treasury’s under the 2 former “voluntary policy.” disclosure This motion was denied the by District after a pretrial hearing. Court Respondents and Huebner on moved, then the same 1 Revenue 145(b), Internal Code of 53 Stat. 63. The § Company candy Shotwell manufactured and marshmallows. Cain President, Sullivan, was Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Huebner, longer Vice President. Huebner no a respondent here. See notes 6 and infra. 2 policy, by Treasury Under that Department first the announced Department Department did not refer to the of Justice prosecution for cases of intentional income tax evasion where the taxpayers things had made Treasury a clean breast of to before any investigation by had been initiated Revenue Service! This policy by Treasury was forth set in various informal announcements officials, regulation. but was never formalized statute or The policy January was abandoned in

236 from obtained evidence of the suppression

ground, alleged their as result taxing authorities them District hearing, the pretrial After further disclosure. opinion an filing later motion, denied this also in good not made disclosure that the it found faith.3 dis affirmed as of Appeals appeal,

On motion, suppression motion but reversed as missal the case for a and remanded convictions, set aside the Appeals found that F. The 2d 394.4 trial. also ruled fide, bona disclosure was respondents’ District an issue which the timely, that the disclosure was us petitioned reached.5 The Government Court had not respondents issue and the for certiorari on the on dismissal issue.6 cross-petitioned and Huebner remand, filed motion to Thereafter, respond- supplemented, amended and which, later procedure us. propriety pretrial is not before The pass made Appeals not on other contentions The Court of did respondents support reversal their conviction. an specifically, the held that there was More Court of voluntary use of the effective disclosure and that Government’s thereby rights respondents their evidence obtained from the violated under Clause of Fifth Amendment. the Self-Incrimination voluntary alleged simply disclosure was District Court held present defective, and the Fifth Amendment. did discuss *4 rulings posture we the correctness of these do reach question going courts, the merits of of the two lower or other respondents’ the conviction. 6 cross-petitions petition for We deferred consideration the by representations the certiorari for some months on basis made 6, 1955, the General in his letters of December and June Solicitor filing motion to which culminated in Government’s originally filed, cross-petition As was remand. See 351 U. S. 980. petition being granted. on the Government’s After conditional remand, respondents the conditional Government moved withdrew entirety. limitation, cross-petition and Huebner withdrew his in its 237 joined by filing of answers.7 ents and Huebner issue by the motion to Considering presented that the matters important affecting proper raised an issue remand granted federal justice courts, administration of petition certiorari, for “limited to the Government’s issues raised in the amended motion to remand and respondents’ thereto and the answer to the supplement motion to remand.” S. 997. We amended U. for certiorari. S. 998. cross-petition denied the U. newly understanding significance For an of the of the proffered by evidence9 some discovered knowledge required position of the taken defendants on the District Court position of that presented issue. substance Busby, accountant, Leon J. Shotwell’s who testified at hearing suppress both the on the motion to and at the trial. Company He stated that the Shotwell each years 1945 and 1946 had received cash substantial payments candy for black-market above P. A. sales O.

7Huebner later withdrew his answer and to the consented Government’s motion. 8Respondents point out that this limitation of our writ in effect certiorari, petition amounted to a denial of the Government’s for remand, and therefore that the motion to which was not before the Appeals, regarded attempt Court of must be as an to invoke an original jurisdiction possess. dispose we do not shall We respondents’ point by vacating granting, our writ nunc limited pro tunc, certiorari, petition the Government’s without restriction. ; jurisdiction, This removes all as to our 28 U. S. C. § prejudices party Mesarosh United 352 U. S. neither only because we shall decide the issues raised the motion to remand. 9Respondents showing opposition have made no such questioning accuracy justify our Government’s motion as would representation of the Solicitor General’s Government’s proffered “newly evidence is discovered.” *5 not recorded on receipts were that these

ceiling prices;10 in its tax reported income and were books Shotwell’s in facts the course of these that he first learned returns; Stanley Graflund, H. Shotwell’s with conversations early New York they took to during trip comptroller, immediately his return in that January 1948; Cain respondents matter with he Chicago discussed disclosing omis- he Sullivan; recommended and at that, and the direction taxing authorities; sions to to Ernest J. the entire affair he revealed respondents, con- a series of Deputy Chicago, Collector Sauber, at part January 1948, latter beginning ferences he accompanied conferences was one or more which thereafter, acting under Cain. He also testified that only lia- and a civil Sauber’s instructions assurances staff, he his assistance bility involved, was an Graflund, conducted exhaustive Cain, Huebner period months recon- investigation over a of several figures black-market trans- struct Shotwell figures He furnished actions. said these were scrutiny. for August agent 1948 to a revenue gave testimony, except similar Sauber Cain fixed him at Busby’s Sauber first visit about middle of March 1948. explanation Cain’s of Shot- report failure in its receipts well’s the black-market receipts income tax returns was that he believed such were not taxable were used to purchase since Shotwell no supplies11 gave black-market and therefore rise to profit.12 puts figure $380,000; respond at some figure $160,000.

ents’ is about 11Except $6,000 reported the amount of was -in returns. Shotwell 12Although Treasury policy deductibility at time denied expenditures, such black-market courts later held that Commissioner, expenditure Sullenger kind of See deductible. 11 T. C. *6 filed has of its motion the Government support Graflund, and which

the Court the affidavits Huebner petition for after the filed they executed paint sharply pic different certiorari. These affidavits contradict the affair; indeed, they flatly entire ture of the the District respondents tale unfolded on behalf specifically: (1) Court. More Graflund swears that time he the black-market transactions with first discussed in late at Busby Busby’s at home June which was previously no indication that he had Busby gave time transactions;13 (2) Graflund and Huebner known of these July held in prior meeting at no time to a swear that by respondents they ever or led to believe were advised receipts had been that black-market disclosed Shotwell’s (3) that it was at this Treasury; Huebner swears him meeting told that a volun July 1948 that Cain first gave and that Cain also tary made, disclosure would that the “agreed” him to understand that it had been date 1948”;14 at June 15, the disclosure “would be set prior and Huebner to the middle (4) Graflund swear that by anyone no to assemble July work was done purpose making records or data for the disclosure to 13 According affidavit, appear it would Graflund’s respondents Special spurred Krane, were into action after Sam Agent Service, of the Internal Revenue visited the Shotwell officeon requested Krane June affidavit states that records relating and information to Shotwell’s transactions with one David G. receiving large money Lubben, from whom Shotwell had been sums books; regular which were not recorded in its that Graflund made to Krane was “criticized” the re certain records available spondents having so; for done and that Graflund conferred with days Busby within a few after Krane’s visit. 13, 1952, In his affidavit Huebner states: “On November Sauber hearing suppress testified at the on the defendant’s motion to evidence Busby March, and Cain had contacted him in 1948. After hearing testify, thought voluntary I told Cain I disclosure Sauber supposed me, date was to be June 1948. Cain said to ‘Ssshhh! ” nobody anything quiet.’ Keep There is this. that knows about that, alleged offsetting pay authorities, and the tax concocted supplies were fact ments black-market (5) Huebner July meeting; at thin air” “out gave August $10,000 1948 he Cain July swears difficulty he “to fix tax needed Cain said that he says Huebner his affidavit in.”15 were “because I had testify in the District Court asked to I not lie on stand.” would stated Government’s new evidence casts It is obvious the truthfulness of the disclosure the darkest shadow *7 by or in the testimony respondents on behalf of given If indicates that what true, Court. District represent have to in the District respondents sought in a Court, Appeals, this Court as vol- timely in a and in untary disclosure, good made manner faith, step conspiracy was instead but a further to difficulties, involving “fix” tax possibly Shotwell’s the cor- 15 represents The if motion to Solicitor General remand Agent testify granted Joseph Lima is M. will Revenue July 30, Ralph Group Supervisor, he was instructed his 1948 return; Johnson, to make an immediate audit of Shotwell’s (as offsets) thereafter he was instructed to allow Johnson over-ceiling totaling $300,000, purchases than more which were contrary wholly whose unsubstantiated and allowance was existing policy; prepared report he Revenue Service and that then showing deficiency $20,000, a tax for 1945 1946 of about destroyed report September he at Johnson’s direction after Intelligence inquiries of the Service had made Unit about In Huebner in his case. this connection states affidavit: me, July, 1948, also sometime in late “Cain told about that he was Shortly he thereafter, the tax me about settle case. Cain told deficiency $20,000.00. tax had settled the tax case for a 1948, Busby meeting October, told me that there been a “In had fraud at the Internal Revenue and that hell in the division office loose; people broken Revenue heck had some Internal had a destroying papers up purpose time that had been made of a billing Shotwell for taxes.” entailing certainly government officials,16 ruption perpetrate a fraud the courts. Were attempt an Appeals upon the Court of we to undertake to review lending well be suspect this, might very record as may consummation of a fraud which ourselves unwitting already have made the Court In that the imperative victim. these circumstances it is for a full case be remanded the District Court truth exploration where the lies before proceed integrity judicial allowed to further. The of the process demands no less. path clearly to our decision is marked pronouncements cases,

Court's actions and two recent Board, Party Communist Subversive Control Activities and Mesarosh v. United U. S. S. 1. U. In each case the questions Court refused to consider the presented for review the face of a challenge integrity newly of the record based on evi- discovered Party Communist dence. the Court remanded charges case to the Board with directions to resolve the taint, and to make a fresh determination on merits, taint were found.17 Mesarosh if Court, believing *8 clearly key the record govern- demonstrated that a wholly ment witness had been took discredited, more action by reversing peti- drastic the convictions of the remanding tioners and the case to the District Court for trial. The basic reason for the Court’s action in supra. note See (a) expressly Section of the Subversive Activities Control Act appeals authorizes courts of to remand cases to the Board for the taking of further evidence. 64 Stat. at 1001-1002. Our authority to provisions act in similar fashion is found in the broad grants C. power, appellate 28 U. S. us to incident our § jurisdiction, any judgment” brought to "vacate . . . “before [us] “require proceedings may review” and to further such to be had as just be under the circumstances.” opinions. Com- in its made manifest cases was

both said: 124-125, Party, supra, pp. at munist cer- justice administration “The untainted of our insti- aspects tainly of the most cherished one our boasts. proudest Its observance is one tutions. in functions supervisory is charged This See in the federal courts. proceedings relation to Therefore, S. 332. McNabb v. United 318 U. of the administration regard for the honor fastidious make requires the Court to certain justice irra- only made so manifest doing justice be disregard can perverse tional or claims of con- pass . . . cannot a record asserted. We find testimony. neces- taining challenged such We grounds not sary dispose do, to of the case on adjudication but in order to avoid a constitutional justice requires fair it.” because the administration Mesarosh, supra, p. 14, the Court said: at has case, “This is a federal criminal and this Court proceedings supervisory jurisdiction over McNabb, [Citing federal courts. a foot- supra, duty perform regard, If it has note.] polluted. justice it is see the waters of are taken the condition having place here, Pollution opportunity.” should be remedied at the earliest convincing showing necessary bring A is of course into principles play. these We think that such a show- made ing newly has been here. discovered evidence contained from prospective affidavits witnesses very Graflund Huebner cuts heart of the testi- mony by respondents adduced to show that made a timely and bona fide Treasury, disclosure the sole issue involved hearings the issue *9 on which the of the outcome of Appeals plain turned. It is either testimony that the Dis- or these themselves are Court was untrue affidavits trict This is a matter for the District fraud. product One thing to determine. is clear. This Court of the Court of cannot be asked to review decision charges until these have been resolved. Mesarosh Party the Communist In both cases, supra, action the Court enured to benefit of the proceedings defendants. instance the further may advantage work to the Government.18 below In the circumstances this case think the dis- that tinction makes no difference. were Because found respondents guilty jury, concede, they must, that motion to remand no involves double Ball, jeopardy. See United States v. 163 U. S. 662, 672. objection Their is it “unfair” to allow Govern- at this stage ment of the proceedings “bolster” the relating record issue likewise unac- ceptable. undeniable, upon It is of course, appellate reversal of conviction the is not at limited trial to presented the evidence first trial, at the but strengthen is free to case in any way can the intro- it duction of new evidence. think peculiar We circumstances of this case the fair of jus- administration requires tice the Government have a should similar if opportunity here. For the Government’s evidence is to be true, found then appear would that the Court of Appeals’ setting decision aside the verdict was obtained respondents a corrupt record attributable their own fraud. the further proceedings the Dis- trict Court the respondents will of have a recip- course opportunity rocal of their validity sustain asserted voluntary disclosures.

18The Government does not concede the correctness of the Court Appeals’ existing Cf. United States decision record. Johnson, 327 U. S. *10 the of fact that Govern- sight the should not lose

We an issue submitted not relate to showing does ment’s pre- rather to a below, but proceedings jury to in the the of admissibility evidence.19 as to the liminary question per- is not the motion to to Government’s Hence, grant of upon which the verdict the evidence mit it to “bolster” That ver- in this jury the case. guilty was returned sufficiency the the of clearly must stand or fall on dict the trial. already introduced at evidence respondents’ of circumstances, acceptance In these to tantamount sanction- on this motion would be position appellate review prohibit rule would ing a might operate if the to suspect taint, of taint record but which would never- defendants, of the disadvantage might their operate if the taint to require theless review quixotic result. advantage. cannot subscribe that We one-way justice fair of is not such The administration street. to remand respondents

The contend that motion of originally should been addressed to Court have that should send the Government Appeals, and now essentially This one back that court.20 contention is 19Respondents urge they suggest here, below, did not do nor admissibility disputed properly evidence jury. an issue for the their has been that Rather contention judge suppress. should have sustained the motion to charges suggested has be It also been these of fraud could Appeals with at the new which the has ordered. dealt trial Appeals of the But as has directed evidence voluntary alleged obtained as a result of the Government disclosure, it seems clear that at new trial the Government could evidence, thereof, “suppression” not use that or the fruits unless the judgment aspect of the of the think Court of is vacated. We justice because, precludes sound administration course true, grant if the Government's evidence is the net would effect respondents trial, justified, procured their a new not otherwise fraud. own in the circumstances discretion, our

addressed was not unavailing. find it case we petition until after its make the motion position of this The course filed in this Court. had been certiorari are abun- We already protracted. been has litigation integrity charges as to that the dantly satisfied *11 forum for proper aired, and that fully be record must famil- of its intimate District Court because this is the sifting contro- and its facilities iarity the record think that state of affairs we facts. this verted to remit unnecessary and wasteful be both would Mesarosh, Appeals. Cf. at supra, p. the fur- about nature of with word conclude

We The additional in District Court. proceedings ther be confined by both sides will presented to be evidence make Court will issue. The District to the may appro- findings of fact on this issue such new exist- evidence and the entire priate light of the further S. Carroll v. United U. ing (see record on of the timeliness including findings question 162), If the District alleged disclosures.21 respondents’ findings, new on the basis of its decides, new evidence Respondents have contended that the Government’s assuming because, is to the issue of timeliness even irrelevant investigation timely truth, no formal the disclosure was since July 1948, after the time that initiated the Revenue Service until respondents first indicates that the Government’s evidence unnecessary Treasury. to deal with the find it communicated We clearly with this because the new evidence is in event contention bona fide disclosure was relevant whether a Moreover, present the record this fact ever made. in the state of argument pass respondents’ as to timeliness Court should not finding (a) yet on this the District Court has not made a because (b) Treasury “voluntary policy” issue, disclosure was never apply it precision to enable us to formulated with sufficient mechanically. suppress, motion to on the decision original

adhere to its judgments based final enter new then it will thereby pre- findings, by its new supplemented record as appellate further right seek parties all serving have reviewed right to respondents’ including review, trial original in the errors alleged Appeals the Court appeal. previous reach did not that court after concludes the District Court hand, other If, on the suppress the motion proceedings further duty then become its it would granted, have been should trial. respondents a new to accord the opinion, set forth this with the views accordance (1) case: following disposition of this make the granted with February 25, 1957, which order of Court’s is certiorari, petition for limitations the Government’s restriction; petition granted is without vacated and such vacated; (2) judgment Court for further (3) the case is remanded to District *12 opinion. proceedings consistent with

It is so ordered. opinion of Mr. Justice with whom Black, Dissenting Douglas concur, and The Chief Justice Justice Mr. Douglas. by announced Mr. Justice can By remanding this case so Government conviction introduce additional evidence to save the I Appeals, out the Court of think the Court thrown unnecessary unprecedented may and action which takes yet unfortunate not far-reaching have and ramifications I clearly deny permit foreseen. would certiorari and thus regular go case its course back to the District pursuant Court for a new trial to the decision of the Court Appeals. At this trial could intro- Government any duce evidence which it now or has, otherwise, new hearing a full could had on charges perjury fraud. incriminat- that defendants’ held

The Court immunity by promises secured ing disclosures were such dis- and that officials government made various because defendants to convict could not be used closures under against self-incrimination privilege of their the case back sends this Court Amendment. Now Fifth make to hear new evidence District Court to the disclo- defendants’ respect to whether findings with with and in accordance good made in faith full sures were of immu- to the offers attached vague conditions certain ruling on the it majority is not nity.1 The asserts claims but Fifth Amendment merits of the defendants’ majority for act to me a vain and wasteful seems supplemen- for these return the case the District the Fifth that neither unless it assumes proceedings tal federal courts any nor rule of evidence Amendment induced incriminating admissions bars the use are not made immunity where disclosures promises ourselves going If are to concern pure motives. with give at least full I we should all, the case at believe in defend- legal problems to the involved consideration remanding the for before requests ants’ proceedings. further here raised questions I think the Fifth Amendment to offhand susceptible are unsettled and important, incriminating respect resolution, particularly with actually turned over to evidence which the defendants immunity prose- from hope securing 542- In Bram v. United S. cution. 168 U. rule that 543, the Court referred with approval *13 “ admissible, must . order to be confession, ‘. . a extracted must not be voluntary: is, free and be motivating behind an with the force are not concerned 1 "We deciding his evasion. in and talk to us about individual’s to come anything, will not be ‘gets religion’ done he If he before we have May Treasury Release, 14, 1947. prosecuted.” Press by violence, nor obtained of threats or any sort slight, nor however any implied promises, direct or A ... any improper of influence. the exertion where never received evidence confession can be or by any threat influenced prisoner has been force measure the cannot promise; law upon upon or effect used, the influence decide and therefore excludes prisoner, mind of the has been any degree if influence declaration ” (Emphasis supplied.) exerted.’ appears it to have been this statement accord with Amend in this Fifth generally assumed in a against prose a defendant criminal ment bars the use him or from cution confessions admissions secured States, Hardy immunity. g., e. promises of United See, States, 266 Ziang Sung v. United 224, 229; 186 U. S. Wan States, v. United 1, 14; U.S. Smith U. S. has And so far I can tell never considered this a good suspect whether faith of the Fifth deprives lack protection he makes under Amendment’s when disclosures a promise immunity, just or under what circumstances I and to true. mean to might what extent do not intimate of this problem now, view the merits but I do register protest against manner in which the majority disposes of the case.

I majority disregarded believe the has also another significant jury and crucial consideration —the role of the in passing on the admissibility defendants’ disclosures. Wilson v. United S. U. laid down a rule questioned: has never

“When there is conflict evidence as to whether is or confession is not if voluntary, the court decides admissible, may it is the question be left to the jury they reject direction that should confession if whole evidence are satis- fied voluntary it was not the act of the defendant.”

249 States, 147, 348 U. S. in Smith v. United recently Just of voluntari- question the Court stated 151, taxpayer jury where left to the properly ness was strength disclosures on made certain he had claimed Kent v. Cf. revenue officers. immunity by of promises of Rico, Porto 113, 118-119. 207 U. S. to be consider there seems federal courts the lower the Wilson as to whether opinion

able difference in the jury participate mandatory makes it is volun a confession determining whether process of a matter is jury’s participation tary or whether United g., compare E. judge.2 trial with the discretion cert, 343 Leviton, denied, 852, 193 F. 2d States States, 74 F. 2d Lewis v. United 946, with U. S. Circuit District of Columbia In at least the 178-179. must judge settled that trial to be appears the rule jury for its to the of voluntariness question submit v. United determination. independent McAffee a num F. 2d 21. the States D. 105 App. C. de the burden of allocating methods ber of different between confession the voluntariness termining seems the trend followed, but have been judge jury voluntariness should determine judge to be the confession if he finds that first instance jury to the submit the case should voluntary then is as evi the confession to consider instructions matter of voluntary. As a also find it dence unless had cases which in Wilson relied on state fact the Court myself I favor rule. “humane” this so-called laid down here, where, beneficial particularly rule, such a extent on admissibility large turns to credibility of witnesses. in Wilson established principles think admis- apply questions clearly cases

subsequent 567. great 170 A. L. R. detail at subject is annotated The entire L. see 85 A. R. Also trial principles these

sibility in this case. raised Under such submitting option minimum, at a has the judge, *15 majority’s disposition jury. the But the questions to new trial possibility partial at the precludes this case infirmity It to avoid this attempts it orders. which does not showing new by saying, “the Government’s pro- in the jury the relate to an issue submitted to question preliminary ceedings below, but rather to n it admissibility continues, And as to the evidence.” suggest below, they not nor do “Respondents urge did admissibility disputed the question of here, that the But these jury.” an for the properly evidence was issue are not con- obviously inadequate. answers are We urged has or what was but happened cerned what in If will handled the future. with how this case be trial had been al- ordered not been lowed to stand the defendants would have barred admissibility demanding from just jury submitted because had not made similar at the trial or on request appeal. first gives opportunity The Court an now Government attempt in an to save a con- introduce new evidence it If Appeals. viction has lost this does infringe technically protection against double Cf. Green spirit. me to v. jeopardy seems to violate its States, States, Kepner United v. United S. 184; U. 195 U. S. 128-129. fact it is even some worse stands from respects. Only Government to benefit partial fight must new trial while defendants keep they already single what have. Not a has been case referred to or discovered where defendants have been sub- jected piecemeal prosecution.3 my knowledge to such To Neither Mesarosh v. United 352 U. S. nor Communist Party Bd., Subversive Activities Control U. S. serves as any authority for the Court’s In the action. Mesarosh case the upheld Government had secured a which had been conviction supplement can it is a new idea that the Government an a conviction which trial record order retain appellate court reverse. would otherwise concede that

Both the Government and extraordinary disposition taken here is but such is action exceptional this is an justified ground I extraordinary agree. called for action. do not all to do on remand proposes essence the Government testimony certain for both impeach witnesses newly No alleged sides with discovered evidence. wit- has recanted nor do the defendants concede that their ness If testimony partially false. can reopen impeach a case to what rational basis is witnesses denying right there for it a similar case when new *16 appear facts persuasively suggest which it could strengthen its evidence order to on save conviction appeal? possibility emphasizes This the anomalous nature of what is done here. proceeds

The Court assumption on the it would be improper suppression for us to review the on might a record which materially testimony contain false Appeals. Court of In this Court the Government came forward with principal evidence that one of its witnesses at the trial had committed perjury and the Court reversed conviction and remanded case for a full new trial. Here the United States has lost a conviction Appeals. the Court of It now asks us to case back to .send attempt trial court so that it can introduce additidnal evidence an salvage the reversed conviction. The difference between the two is cases manifest and crucial. Party findings

In the Communist case administrative were chal- lenged agency and this Court remanded the case to the so that it might testimony by gov- perjurious consider the record free of proceeding hardly ernment witnesses. The there administrative can equated be prosecution Moreover, with the criminal involved here. Party in both the Mesarosh and Communist cases the Court’s action operated protect rights defendants, not as here to aid the justice Government. view of our traditional methods of criminal importance. this difference is not without to send although concededly unique, better, it is and that that issue. But there on more evidence the case back for alternative. As to either undesirable no to resort is need left simply be the case should beginning in the I stated There the a new trial. go back for alone and allowed secure it has or can can offer all the evidence suppression be made on the new record can so that a seriously be con my it cannot judgment issue. from intro be barred that the Government would tended trial. While ducing on that at new evidence issue the disclosures Appeals ordered is true that it, before in the record then suppressed, the evidence binding at new construed as ruling such should not be newly evidence discovered avail trial where substantial Wharton, 378; F. 2d Ins. Co. v. able. Cf. Aetna Life Ferguson Corp., rel. Shell Petroleum City Sedalia ex I F. 2d 193. If think not —this Court need be—and judgment of the Court of could vacate the allow a de novo necessary the extent the Government hearing at the trial. on the issue full far justice 2106. This do as as the S. C. would § U. if are charges perjury of tax evasion concerned has a separate can crime. prosecuted been committed it dangerous precedent I think this is a should needlessly not be launched into stream the law.