Friedberg v. United States (348 U.S. 142)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 6, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 348 U.S. 142 · 75 S. Ct. 138
- Docket
- No. 18
- Argued
- October 20, 1954
- Decided
- December 6, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1954
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Clark
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Douglas, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Frankfurter, Justice Burton, Justice Reed, Justice Minton
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the second in the group of four cases involving income tax prosecutions under the net worth method of proof. In this case petitioner was indicted for the years 1944 through 1947, and convicted on all counts except the first, covering the year 1944. While the discussion in Holland v. United States, ante, p. 121, is dispositive of some of the more general problems raised by this type of prosecution, petitioner here directs his fire specifically at the sufficiency of the evidence as to his opening net worth. To highlight his contention that the Government had not properly accounted for an alleged hoard of cash and bonds on hand at the beginning of the indictment period, petitioner has stipulated virtually every other net worth issue out of the case. Although petitioner’s testimony as to this cash on hand vacillated, we conclude from a careful examination of the testimony that the largest amount claimed at the starting point was “far in excess” of $60,000. The Government’s evidence, as in Holland, did not directly dispute this, but it did painstakingly trace the Friedbergs’ finances from 1922 through the prosecution years. It pointed unmistakably to the conclusion that petitioner had no such hoard of cash at the starting point. This evidence, briefly outlined, was as follows: Petitioner filed no tax return for 1922,…
Excerpt of a 6,157-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.