Dunn v. United States Case Brief

Facts of the Case

“Petitioner’s testimony before a grand jury in June 1976 implicated one Musgrave in various drug-related offenses, and an indictment of Musgrave followed. On September 30, 1976, petitioner recanted his testimony in an oral statement made under oath in the office of Musgrave’s attorney. Musgrave then moved to dismiss his indictment, alleging that it was based on perjured testimony. At an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss, petitioner adopted his September 30 statement and testified that only a small part of his grand jury testimony was true. As a result, the charges against Musgrave were reduced. Petitioner was subsequently indicted for violations of 18 U. S. C. § 1623 (1976 ed., Supp. I), which prohibited false declarations made under oath “in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury.” The indictment charged that petitioner’s grand jury testimony was inconsistent with statements made “on September 30, 1976, while under oath as a witness in a proceeding ancillary to” the Musgrave prosecution. At trial, the Government introduced, over petitioner’s objection, pertinent parts of his grand jury testimony, his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and his sworn statement to Musgrave’s attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, although it agreed with the petitioner that he interview in the attorney’s office was not an ancillary proceeding under Title IV, having determined that the October hearing at which the witness adopted his September statement was a proceeding ancillary to a grand jury investigation, and that the indictment’s specification of the September interview in the attorney’s office rather than the October evidentiary hearing as the ancillary proceeding constituted a non-prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. Petitioner challenged the decision.”

Question

“Does Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compare costs with benefits in determining the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact” at cooling water intake structures?”

CONCLUSION

0

Case Information

Citation: 442 US 100 (1979)
Argued: Mar 28, 1979
Decided: Jun 4, 1979
Case Brief: 1979