The Case of Brogan v. United States and Its Outcome

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

In 1997, a case occurred in an American court that led to disputes. Before this, James Brogan agreed to answer some questions from federal agents from the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service. He was asked if he had taken bribes from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer, and he replied “No.” United States District Court proved the defendant’s lie and found him guilty of bribery. However, the court also found him guilty of perjury. As a result, the defendant requested to apply the “exculpatory no” doctrine to 18 U. S. Code 1001 but was refused. The detailed analysis of this case is revealing and useful for a better understanding of the laws of the American court.

Discussion

At the time of the conversation between federal agents and James Brogan, 18 U. S. Code 1001 said that any denial, including “no,” was false testimony. However, Petitioner tried to prove that “exculpatory no” was an exception to section 1001. He said that the denial of one’s crime is not an obstacle to governmental functions. Although refused, he continued to argue that “exculpatory no” could be used. The key argument for further denial is that different nuances do not justify lying. Petitioner focused his arguments on the conditions under which federal agents communicated with Brogan. The key argument of the majority was that federal agents visited the house of Brogan without warning for a surprise effect. Moreover, they failed to warn the defendant that lying to federal agents was a criminal offense. Nor did they tell Brogan that he had the right to silence. The petitioner used these arguments to emphasize the defendant’s unconsciousness of the consequences of lying.

When it became clear that the petitioner had a chance of proving that 1001 might not apply to “exculpatory no” this case was considered in more detail. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner paid particular attention to the circumstances in which federal agents conducted interviews at Brogan’s home. If the element of the surprise visit did not play such a significant role in the consideration of this case, the fact that Brogan was not informed of criminal liability in the event of a false response played a key role. According to the US Supreme Court (1998), “a denial of guilt in the circumstances indicating surprise or other lack of reflection was not the product of the requisite criminal intent” (p. 416). It was eventually determined that the doctrine of “exculpatory no” could be applied to section 1001. Consequently, the case was examined in detail and exemplified the importance of the defendant’s knowledge of responsibility in answering questions from government representatives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it might be emphasized that certain changes to the law, such as the changes to section 1001, were made after James Brogan v. United States case. The rights and peculiarities of “exculpatory no” were defined, as was the fact that the person must be informed and aware of the consequences in the case of giving false testimony to federal services. The case was an example of how pointing to deficiencies in the judicial system and the laws of the United States of America could provoke positive changes in them and make the court more equitable and professional.

Reference

US Supreme Court. (1998). Brogan v. United States. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Case of Brogan v. United States and Its Outcome

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)