United States v. Darrell Daniel Goldfine, United States of America v. Solomon Walter Goldfine

Darrell Daniel Goldfine and. Solomon Goldfine, brothers, are pharmacists licensed by the State of Washington. Darrell Gold-fine was sole owner of a drugstore in Seattle, Service Rexall Drugs, and half owner of a second, Greenlake Rexall Drugs. Solomon Goldfine was an employee of his brother at Service Rexall. Darrell Goldfine was registered with the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration to sell controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 822 . Solomon Goldfine was not so registered.

In 1974 an indictment was issued against the Goldfines, charging them with a multitude of violations of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. Following trial they were both found guilty of the following offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 842, 843 and 846: conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute, and to omit information from required records; possession with intent to distribute (two counts as to Solomon Goldfine; four counts as to Darrell Goldfine); knowingly failing to make and keep required records; and knowingly omitting material information from required records. In addition Darrell Goldfine was found guilty of…

(specially concurring):

I concur but add a few words on the subject of Darrell Goldfine’s conviction under Section 1001. It was proper because: (a) despite the anticipation of criminal prosecution the DEA agents were conducting a legitimate administrative investigation at the time they asked the question generating Goldfine’s false reply; and (b) the false statement was clearly “material” under Brandow.

By the plain words of § 1001 Goldfine’s conduct was proscribed and the conviction proper. See Bedore, 455 F.2d at 1110. Even if the statute is read more narrowly than its plain words dictate, our interpretive decisions in Brandow and Bedore when read together stand for this rule: Section 1001 proscribes the willful submission to federal agencies, by one asserting or possessing a claim against or privilege from the United States, of false statements calculated to induce, and having the intrinsic capability of inducing, favorable agency reliance or action. Compare Brandow, 268 F.2d at 565, with Bedore, 455 F.2d at 1111.

Darrell Goldfine was dispensing controlled substances by virtue of a governmental privilege and was required to register annually to preserve the privilege. [ 21…

(concurring and dissenting):

I concur with the majority’s opinion with the exception of its treatment of the 18 U.S.C. § 1001 issue. From that I respectfully dissent.

It is critical to observe at the outset that the majority reaffirms the continuing validity of United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972) by attempting to distinguish it. Bedore , as the Ninth Circuit observed in United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 101,105 (1972), is an “ ‘exculpatory no’ — policeman case,” meaning, that under the principles of Bedore , § 1001 typically does not apply where an accused falsely denies his guilt to the police. 1 Thus, in the routine case, if an agent of the F.B.I. questions a suspect and the suspect falsely denies guilt, the suspect cannot be properly charged under § 1001. That section does not usher a heads we win — tails you lose philosophy into the criminal justice system. (“If you tell our version of the truth, we will call it an admission and use it against you on the substantive offense; If you tell us something which materially varies from our version of the truth, we will charge you with a § 1001 felony”). 2 Bedore stands for the *822 proposition that an accused may…

538 F.2d 815 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Daniel GOLDFINE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon Walter GOLDFINE, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 74-3397, 74-3320. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 1, 1976. Murray B. Guterson (argued), Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant Solomon Walter Goldfine. James S. Kempton (argued), Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant Darrell Daniel Goldfine. J. Ronald Sim, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION Before MERRILL and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, * District Judge. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 Darrell Daniel Goldfine and Solomon Goldfine, brothers, are pharmacists licensed by the State of Washington. Darrell Goldfine was sole owner of a drugstore in Seattle, Service Rexall Drugs, and half owner of a second, Greenlake Rexall Drugs. Solomon Goldfine was an employee of his brother at Service Rexall. Darrell Goldfine was registered with the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration to sell controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 822 . Solomon Goldfine was not so registered. 2 In 1974 an indictment was issued…