Mackey v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsRetroactivityFifth AmendmentCollateral ReviewSection 2255retroactivitycollateral review§ 2255

Facts

Mackey was indicted in 1963 and convicted in 1964 on five counts of evading payment of income taxes for 1956 through 1960. At trial, the Government used the net worth method and introduced 60 wagering excise tax returns Mackey had filed under 26 U.S.C. § 4401, along with a summary exhibit and testimony showing the wagering figures exceeded the gambling profits reported on his income tax returns. In 1968, after this Court decided Marchetti and Grosso and held that the Fifth Amendment privilege was a valid defense to prosecution for failure to comply with federal gambling tax requirements, Mackey sought collateral relief. He argued that because those returns were compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, their use at his trial required his conviction to be set aside.

Issue

Whether the rule announced in Marchetti and Grosso applies retroactively on collateral review to invalidate a pre-Marchetti conviction for income tax evasion because wagering excise tax returns filed under the gambling tax statutes were introduced against the defendant at trial.

Rule

Marchetti and Grosso do not apply retroactively on collateral review to set aside a pre-Marchetti conviction that was obtained in conformity with then-controlling law when the use of the compelled wagering tax returns does not cast doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the verdict. New Fifth Amendment rules expanding the privilege against self-incrimination need not be given retroactive effect where their purpose is not to improve the reliability of the fact-finding process.

🔒

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.

In 1964, Daniel Ortiz was convicted in federal court in St. Louis of income tax evasion. The prosecution introduced monthly liquor-distribution tax forms that Ortiz had filed under a federal reporting scheme; years later, the Supreme Court held that people in that line of business could invoke the Fifth Amendment to refuse filing those forms because compliance substantially risked self-incrimination under related criminal laws. Ortiz's conviction became final before that later decision, and he now seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

How should the federal court rule on Ortiz's § 2255 motion?

Explanation. The majority held that a new Fifth Amendment rule expanding the privilege against self-incrimination need not be applied retroactively on collateral review when its purpose is not to improve the reliability of fact-finding and the prior conviction was obtained under then-controlling law. If the compelled filings were relevant and probative and do not cast doubt on the accuracy of the verdict, § 2255 relief is unavailable.