Dunn v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Corporations

442 U.S. 100 (1979)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsPerjuryCriminal ProcedureStatutory Interpretation18 U.S.C. § 1623ancillary proceedingfalse declarationsinconsistent declarations

Facts

Dunn testified before a federal grand jury under a grant of immunity and implicated another inmate, Musgrave, in drug-related offenses. Months later, Dunn went without counsel to Musgrave's attorney's private office and, in the presence of the attorney and a notary, gave a sworn oral statement recanting his grand jury testimony. The attorney later used a transcript of that statement to support a motion to dismiss Musgrave's indictment, and at a later evidentiary hearing Dunn adopted the prior statement. Dunn was then indicted under § 1623 on the theory that his grand jury testimony was inconsistent with his September 30 sworn statement given in the attorney's office.

Issue

Whether a sworn statement taken in a private attorney's office, before a notary and later submitted to court, constitutes a 'proceeding ancillary to any court or grand jury' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Also, whether the court of appeals could uphold the conviction on the basis of a different proceeding than the one charged and presented to the jury.

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, the phrase 'proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury' does not cover every sworn statement later submitted to a court. The term 'proceeding' requires a degree of formality at least consistent with proceedings such as depositions, and ambiguity in the reach of a criminal statute must be resolved in favor of lenity.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal grand jury in Phoenix is investigating bribery in a local housing program. Months later, witness Elena Ruiz meets in a defense lawyer's office in Tucson, where, in the presence of the lawyer and a notary, she gives a sworn oral recantation intended to be attached to a motion to dismiss; no court order issued, no formal notice was given, and Ruiz does not certify the transcript.

If prosecutors later charge Ruiz under § 1623(c) based on inconsistency between her grand jury testimony and the Tucson statement, which is the strongest argument for acquittal?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a private attorney-office interview does not qualify as a proceeding 'ancillary to any court or grand jury' unless it has sufficient formality. The Court emphasized features associated with depositions—court authorization, formal notice, counsel protections, and transcript certification. A notarized recantation in a lawyer's office lacking those safeguards is not clearly within § 1623.