author: Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Marshall,

text:
    GARNER v. UNITED STATES
    No. 74-100.
    Argued November 4, 1975
    Decided March 23, 1976
    Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 666. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Burton Marks argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Oolden.

      Deputy Solicitor General Jones argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Thorn-burgh, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Jerome M. Feit, and Frederick W. Bead III.

   Mr. Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves a nontax criminal prosecution in which the Government introduced petitioner’s income tax returns to prove the offense against him. The question is whether the introduction of this evidence, over petitioner’s Fifth Amendment objection, violated the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination when petitioner made the incriminating disclosures on his returns instead of then claiming the privilege.

I

Petitioner, Roy Garner, was indicted for a conspiracy involving the use of interstate transportation and communication facilities to “fix” sporting contests, to transmit bets and information assisting in the placing of bets, and to distribute the resultant illegal proceeds. 18 U. S. C. §§371, 224, 1084, 1952. The Government’s case was that conspirators bet on horse races either having fixed them or while in possession of other information unavailable to the general public. Garner’s role in this scheme was the furnishing of inside information. The case against him included the testimony of other conspirators and telephone toll records that showed calls from Garner to other conspirators before various bets were placed.

The Government also introduced, over Garner’s Fifth Amendment objection, the Form 1040 income tax returns that Garner had filed for 1965, 1966, and 1967. In the 1965 return Garner had reported his occupation as “professional gambler,” and in each return he reported substantial income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution relied on Garner’s familiarity with “the business of wagering and gambling,” as reflected in his returns, to help rebut his claim that his relationships with other conspirators were innocent ones.

The jury returned a guilty verdict. Garner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contending that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination entitled him to exclude the tax returns despite his failure to claim the privilege on the returns instead of making disclosures. Sitting en banc the Court of Appeals held that Garner’s failure to assert the privilege on his returns defeated his Fifth Amendment claim. 501 F. 2d 236. We agree.

II

In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:

“If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.” Id., at 263.

Had Garner invoked the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination on his tax returns in lieu of supplying the information used against him, the Internal Revenue Service could have proceeded in either or both of two ways. First, the Service could have sought to have Garner criminally prosecuted under § 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Code), 26 U. S. C. § 7203, which proscribes, among other things, the willful failure to make a return. Second, the Service could have sought to complete Garner’s returns administratively “from [its] own knowledge and from such information as [it could] obtain through testimony or otherwise.” 26 U. S. C. § 6020 (b)(1). Section 7602 (2) of the Code authorizes the Service in such circumstances to summon the taxpayer to appear and to produce records or give testimony. 26 U. S. C. § 7602 (2). If Garner had persisted in his claim when summoned, the Service could have sued for enforcement in district court, subjecting Garner to the threat of the court’s contempt power. 26 U. S. C. § 7604.

Given Sullivan, it cannot fairly be said that taxpayers are “volunteers” when they file their tax returns. The Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a “witness” before a grand jury. The availability to the Service of § 7203 prosecutions and the summons procedure also induces taxpayers to disclose unprivileged information on their returns. The question, however, is whether the Government can be said to have compelled Garner to incriminate himself with regard to specific disclosures made on his return when he could have claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege instead.

Ill

We start from the fundamental proposition:

“[A] witness protected by the privilege may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972). Absent such protection, if he is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible against him in a later criminal prosecution. Bram v. United States, [168 U. S. 532 (1897)]; Boyd v. United States, [116 U. S. 616 (1886)].” Lefkowitz v. Tur-ley, 414 U. S. 70, 78 (1973).

See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 57 n. 6 (1964).

Because the privilege protects against the use of compelled statements as well as guarantees the right to remain silent absent immunity, the inquiry in a Fifth Amendment case is not ended when an incriminating statement is made in lieu of a claim of privilege. Nor, however, is failure to claim the privilege irrelevant.

The Court has held that an individual under compulsion to make disclosures as a witness who revealed information instead of claiming the privilege lost the benefit of the privilege. United States v. Kordel, 397 U. S. 1, 7-10 (1970). Although Kordel appears to be the only square holding to this effect, the Court frequently has recognized the principle in dictum. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 466 (1975); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 370-371 (1951); Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 150 (1949); United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 427 (1943); Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 112-113 (1927). These decisions stand for the proposition that, in the ordinary case, if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the government has not “compelled” him to incriminate himself.

“The Amendment speaks of compulsion. It does not preclude a witness from testifying voluntarily in matters which may incriminate him. If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the Amendment.” United States v. Monia, supra, at 427 (footnote omitted).

In their insistence upon a claim of privilege, Kordel and the older witness cases reflect an appropriate accommodation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and the generally applicable principle that governments have the right to everyone’s testimony. Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 364-365 (1917); see, e. g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 688 (1972); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 443-445 (1972). Despite its cherished position, the Fifth Amendment addresses only a relatively narrow scope of inquiries. Unless the government seeks testimony that will subject its giver to criminal liability, the constitutional right to remain silent absent immunity does not arise. An individual therefore properly may be compelled to give testimony, for example, in a noncriminal investigation of himself. See, e. g., Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 278 (1968). Unless a witness objects, a government ordinarily may assume that its compulsory processes are not eliciting testimony that he deems to be incriminating. Only the witness knows whether the apparently innocent disclosure sought may incriminate him, and the burden appropriately lies with him to make a timely assertion of the privilege. If, instead, he discloses the information sought, any incriminations properly are viewed as not compelled.

In addition, the rule that a witness must claim the privilege is consistent with the fundamental purpose of the Fifth Amendment — the preservation of an adversary system of criminal justice. See Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 415 (1966). That system is undermined when a government deliberately seeks to avoid the burdens of independent investigation by compelling self-incriminating disclosures. In areas where a government cannot be said to be compelling such information, however, there is no such circumvention of the constitutionally mandated policy of adversary criminal proceedings. Cf. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 562-565 (1892); California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424, 456-458 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).

IV

The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a “witness,” as that term is used herein. Since Garner disclosed information on his returns instead of objecting, his Fifth Amendment claim would be defeated by an application of the general requirement that witnesses must claim the privilege. Garner, however, resists the application of that requirement, arguing that incriminating disclosures made in lieu of objection are “compelled” in the tax-return context. He relies spe-fically on three situations in which incriminatory disclosures have been considered compelled despite a failure to claim the privilege. Eiut in each of these narrowly defined situations, some factor not present here made inappropriate the general rule that the privilege must be claimed. In each situation the relevant factor was held to deny the individual a “free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 241 (1941). For the reasons stated below, we conclude that no such factor deprived Garner of that free choice.

A

Garner relies first on cases dealing with coerced confessions, e. g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), where the Court has required the exclusion of incriminating statements unless there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege regardless of whether the privilege has been claimed. Id., at 467-469, 475-477. Garner notes that it has not been shown that his failure to claim the privilege was such a waiver.

It is evident that these cases have little to do with disclosures on a tax return. The coerced-confession cases present the entirely different situation of custodial interrogation. See id., at 467. It is presumed that without proper safeguards the circumstances of custodial interrogation deny an individual the ability freely to choose to remain silent. See ibid. At the same time, the inquiring government is acutely aware of the potentially incriminatory nature of the disclosures sought. Thus, any pressures inherent in custodial interrogation are compulsions to incriminate, not merely compulsions to make unprivileged disclosures. Because of the danger that custodial interrogation posed to the adversary system favored by the privilege, the Court in Miranda was impelled to adopt the extraordinary safeguard of excluding statements made without a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege. Id., at 467, 475-476; see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 97 (1975); Schneck-loth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 246-247 (1973). Nothing in this case suggests the need for a similar presumption that a taxpayer makes disclosures on his return rather than claims the privilege because his will is overborne. In fact, a taxpayer, who can complete his return at leisure and with legal assistance, is even less subject to the psychological pressures at issue in Miranda than a witness who has been called to testify in judicial proceedings. Cf. United States v. Kordel, 397 U. S., at 9-10; Miranda, supra, at 461.

B

Garner relies next on Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667 (1971), the relevance of which can be understood only in light of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968). In the latter cases the Court considered whether the Fifth Amendment was a defense in prosecutions for failure to file the returns required of gamblers in connection with the federal occupational and excise taxes on gambling. The Court found that any disclosures made in connection with the payment of those taxes tended to incriminate because of the pervasive criminal regulation of gambling activities. Marchetti, supra, at 48-49; Grosso, supra, at 66-67. Since submitting a claim of privilege in lieu of the returns also would incriminate, the Court held that the privilege could be exercised by simply failing to file.

In Mackey, the disclosures required in connection with the gambling excise tax had been made before Marchetti and Grosso were decided. Mackey’s returns were introduced in a criminal prosecution for income tax evasion. Although a majority of the Court considered the disclosures on the returns to have been compelled incrimina-tions, 401 U. S., at 672 (plurality opinion); id., at 704-705 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 713 (Douglas, J., dissenting), Mackey was not immunized against their use because Marchetti and Grosso were held nonretroactive. 401 U. S., at 674-675 (plurality opinion); id., at 700-701 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). Garner assumes that if Mackey had made his disclosures after Marchetti and Grosso, they could not have been used against him. He then concludes that since Mackey would have been privileged to file no returns at all, Mackey stands for the proposition that an objection at trial always suffices to preserve the privilege even if disclosures have been made previously.

Assuming that Garner otherwise reads Mackey correctly, we do not think that case should be applied in this context. The basis for the holdings in Marchetti and Grosso was that the occupational and excise taxes on gambling required disclosures only of gamblers, the great majority of whom were likely to incriminate themselves by responding. Marchetti, supra, at 48-49, 57; Grosso, supra, at 66-68. Therefore, as in the coerced-confession cases, any compulsion to disclose was likely to compel self-incrimination. Garner is differently situated. Although he disclosed himself to be a gambler, federal income tax returns are not directed at those ‘inherently suspect of criminal activities.’ ” Marchetti, supra, at 52. As noted in Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79 (1965), “the questions in [an] income tax return [are] neutral on their face and directed at the public at large.” The great majority of persons who file income tax returns do not incriminate themselves by disclosing their occupation. The requirement that such returns be completed and filed simply does not involve the compulsion to incriminate considered in Mackey.

C

Garner’s final argument relies on Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967). There policemen summoned during an investigation of police corruption were informed that they could claim the privilege but that they would be discharged for doing so. The disclosures they made were introduced against them in subsequent criminal prosecutions. The Court held that the penalty of discharge for reliance on the privilege foreclosed a free choice to remain silent, and therefore had the effect of compelling the incriminating testimony given by the policemen. Garner notes that a taxpayer who claims the privilege on his return faces the possibility of a criminal prosecution under § 7203 for failure to make a return. He argues that the possibility of prosecution, like the threat of discharge in Garrity, compels a taxpayer to make incriminating disclosures rather than claim the privilege. This contention is not entirely without force, but we find it unpersuasive.

The policemen in Garrity were threatened with punishment for a concededly valid exercise of the privilege, but one in Garner’s situation is at no such disadvantage. A § 7203 conviction cannot be based on a valid exercise of the privilege. This is implicit in the dictum of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259 (1927), that the privilege may be claimed on a return. Furthermore, the Court has held that an individual summoned by the Service to provide documents or testimony can rely on the privilege to defend against a § 7203 prosecution for failure to “supply any information.” See United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933) (Murdock II); United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141 (1931) (Murdock I), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964). The Fifth Amendment itself guarantees the taxpayer’s insulation against liability imposed on the basis of a valid and timely claim of privilege, a protection broadened by § 7203’s statutory standard of “willfulness.”

Since a valid claim of privilege cannot be the basis for a § 7203 conviction, Garner can prevail only if the possibility that a claim made on the return will be tested in a criminal prosecution suffices in itself to deny him freedom to claim the privilege. He argues that it does so, noting that because of the threat of prosecution under § 7203 a taxpayer contemplating a claim of privilege on his return faces a more difficult choice than does a witness contemplating a claim of privilege in a judicial proceeding. If the latter claims the protection of the Fifth Amendment, he receives a judicial ruling at that time on the validity of his claim, and he has an opportunity to reconsider it before being held in contempt for refusal to answer. Cf. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S., at 460-461. A § 7203 prosecution, however, may be brought without a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege that would allow the taxpayer to reconsider.

In essence, Garner contends that the Fifth Amendment guarantee requires such a preliminary-ruling procedure for testing the validity of an asserted privilege. It may be that such a procedure would serve the best interests of the Government as well as of the taxpayer, cf. Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, 213-214 (1955) (Harlan, J., dissenting), but we certainly cannot say that the Constitution requires it. The Court previously has considered Fifth Amendment claims in the context of a criminal prosecution where the defendant did not have the benefit of a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege. It has never intimated that such a procedure is other than permissible. Indeed, the Court has given some measure of endorsement to it. In Murdock I, supra, an individual was prosecuted under predecessors of § 7203 for refusing to make disclosures after being summoned by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In this Court he contended, apparently on statutory grounds, that there could be no prosecution without a prior judicial enforcement suit to allow presentation of his claim of privilege to a court for a preliminary ruling. The. Court said:

“While undoubtedly the right of a witness to refuse to answer lest he incriminate himself may be tested in proceedings to compel answer, there is no support for the contention that there must be such a deter-initiation of that question before prosecution for the willful failure so denounced.” 284 U. S., at 148.

See also Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 167-170 (1955); Emspak v. United States, supra, at 213-214 (Harlan, J., dissenting).

We are satisfied that Murdock I states the constitutional standard. What is at issue here is principally a matter of timing and procedure. As long as a valid and timely claim of privilege is available as a defense to a taxpayer prosecuted for failure to make a return, the taxpayer has not been denied a free choice to remain silent merely because of the absence of a preliminary judicial ruling on his claim. We therefore do not agree that Garner was deterred from claiming the privilege in the sense that was true of the policemen in Garrity.

V

In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incrimina-tions. He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Marshall,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court that petitioner, having made incriminating disclosures on his income tax returns rather than having claimed the privilege against self-incrimination, cannot thereafter assert the privilege to bar the introduction of his returns in a criminal prosecution. I disagree, however, with the Court’s rationale, which is far broader than is either necessary or appropriate to dispose of this case.

This case ultimately turns on a simple question— whether the possibility of being prosecuted under 26 U. S. C. § 7203 for failure to make a return compels a taxpayer to make an incriminating disclosure rather than claim the privilege against self-incrimination on his return. In discussing this question, the Court notes that only a “willful” failure to make a return is punishable under § 7203, and that “a defendant could not properly be convicted for an erroneous claim of privilege asserted in good faith.” Ante, at 663 n. 18. Since a good-faith .erroneous assertion of the privilege does not expose a taxpayer to criminal liability, I would hold that the threat of prosecution does not compel incriminating disclosures in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The protection accorded a good-faith assertion of the privilege effectively preserves the taxpayer’s freedom to choose between making incriminating disclosures and claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege, and I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for that reason.

Not content to rest its decision on that ground, the Court decides that even if a good-faith erroneous assertion of the privilege could form the basis for criminal liability, the threat of prosecution does not amount to compulsion. It is constitutionally sufficient, according to the Court, that a valid claim of privilege is a defense to a § 7203 prosecution. Ante, at 662-665. In so holding, the Court answers a question that by its own admission is not presented by the facts of this case. And, contrary to the implication contained in the Court’s opinion, the question is one of first impression in this Court.

Citing United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141 (1931) (Murdock I), the Court observes that a taxpayer who claims the privilege on his return can be convicted of a § 7203 violation without having been given a preliminary ruling on the validity of his claim and a "second chance” to complete his return after his claim is rejected. The Court then leaps to the conclusion that the Fifth Amendment is satisfied as long as a valid claim of privilege is a defense to a § 7203 prosecution.

I accept the proposition that a preliminary ruling is not a prerequisite to a § 7203 prosecution. But cf. Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 165-170 (1955). But it does not follow, and Murdock I does not hold, that the absence of a preliminary ruling is of no import in considering whether a defense of good-faith assertion of the privilege is constitutionally required. It is one thing to deny a good-faith defense to a witness who is given a prompt ruling on the validity of his claim of privilege and an opportunity to reconsider his refusal to testify before subjecting himself to possible punishment for contempt. See, e. g., Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 460-461 (1975). It would be quite another to deny a good-faith defense to someone like petitioner, who may be denied a ruling on the validity of his claim of privilege until his criminal prosecution, when it is too late to reconsider. If, contrary to the undisputed fact, a taxpayer had no assurance of either a preliminary ruling or a defense of good-faith assertion of the privilege, he could claim the privilege only at the risk that an erroneous assessment of the law of self-incrimination would subject him to criminal liability. In that event, I would consider the taxpayer to have been denied the free choice to claim the privilege, and would view any incriminating disclosures on his tax return as “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Only because a good-faith erroneous claim of privilege entitles a taxpayer to acquittal under § 7203 can I conclude that petitioner's disclosures are admissible against him.

       Garner was also indicted for aiding and abetting the violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1084, the substantive offense involving transmission of bets and betting information. The trial judge acquitted him on this count at the close of the Government’s case.

       The panel of the Court of Appeals that originally heard the case had accepted Gamer’s contention and reversed, one judge dissenting. 501 F. 2d 228. The en banc court affirmed the conviction by a 7-to-5 vote.

       In Sullivan, Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, said: “It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon.” 274 U. S., at 263-264.
      We have no occasion in this case to decide what types of information are so neutral that the privilege could rarely, if ever, be asserted to prevent their disclosure. See also California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424 (1971). Further, the claims of privilege we consider here are only those justified by a fear of self-incrimination other than under the tax laws. Finally, nothing we say here questions the continuing validity of Sullivan’s holding that returns must be filed.

       Title 26 U. S. C. § 7203 reads in full:
      “Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of section 6015), keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

       Title 26 U. S. C. § 7602 reads in part:
      “For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ... , or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized—
      “(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers,, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry . . . .”

       Title 18 U. S. C. § 6004 would appear to authorize the Service, as an alternative to an enforcement suit, to order a summoned taxpayer to make disclosures in exchange for immunity. We are informed, however, that it has not been the Service’s practice to utilize § 6004. Brief for United States 19, and n. 11.

       The term “witness” is used herein to identify one who, at the time disclosures are sought from him, is not a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The more frequent situations in which a witness’ disclosures are compelled, subject to Fifth Amendment rights, include testimony before a grand jury, in a civil or criminal case or proceeding, or before a legislative or administrative body possessing subpoena power.

       The Court also has held, analogously, that a witness loses the privilege by failing to claim it promptly even though the information being sought remains undisclosed when the privilege is claimed. United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 148 (1931), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964); see Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S., at 371.

       This conclusion has not always been couched in the language used here. Some cases have indicated that a nonclaiming witness has “waived” the privilege, see, e. g., Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 113 (1927). Others have indicated that such a witness testifies “voluntarily,” see, e. g., Rogers v. United States, supra, at 371. Neither usage seems analytically sound. The cases do not apply a “waiver” standard as that term was used in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938), and we recently have made clear that an individual may lose the benefit of the privilege without making a knowing and intelligent waiver. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 222-227, 235-240, 246-247 (1973). Moreover, it seems desirable to reserve the term “waiver” in these cases for the process by which one affirmatively renounces the protection of the privilege, see, e. g., Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 150 (1949). The concept of “voluntariness” is related to the concept of “compulsion.” But it may promote clarity to use the latter term in cases where disclosures are required in the face of a claim of privilege, while reserving “voluntariness” for the concerns discussed in Part IV, infra, at 656-665, where we consider whether some factor prevents a taxpayer desiring to claim the privilege from doing so.

       These arguments were in fact advanced in the dissent from the en banc decision below, which Garner adopted as his brief on the self-incrimination issue. Brief for Petitioner 8. Garner’s brief itself principally advances two other claims of error. The facts underlying these claims were not presented in the petition for certiorari, see this Court’s Rule 23 (1) (e), which alone would have merited a denial of a petition not containing the self-incrimination claim. Rule 23 (4). Further, these contentions were not deemed of sufficient merit to warrant discussion below. In those circumstances we consider it inappropriate to reach them.

       As we have noted, the privilege is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony. A corollary to that principle is that the claim of privilege ordinarily must be presented to a “tribunal” for evaluation at the time disclosures are initially sought. See Albertsons. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 78-79 (1965); Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S., at 113; Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 364-365 (1917). This early evaluation of claims allows the Government to compel evidence if the claim is invalid or if immunity is granted and therefore assures that the Government obtains all the information to which it is entitled. In the gambling tax cases, however, making a claim of privilege when the disclosures were requested, i. e., when the returns were due, would have identified the claimant as a gambler. The Court therefore forgave the usual requirement that the claim of privilege be presented for evaluation in favor of a “claim” by silence. See Marchetti, 390 U. S., at 50. Nonetheless, it was recognized that one who “claimed” the privilege by refusing to file could be required subsequently to justify his claim of privilege. See id., at 61. If a particular gambler would not have incriminated himself by filing the tax returns, the privilege would not justify a failure to file.

       Mr. Justice BrennaN, joined by Mr. Justice Marshall, concurred in the judgment on the ground that the compelled disclosure of the amount of Mackey’s gambling income could be used in a prosecution for income tax evasion. See 401 U. S., at 702.

       It does not follow necessarily that a taxpayer would be immunized against use of disclosures made on gambling tax returns when the Fifth Amendment would have justified a failure to file at all. If Marchetti and Grosso had been held retroactive, immunization might have been appropriate in Mackey’s case. But at the time Mackey filed there was in fact no privilege not to file. Not only had Marchetti and Grosso not yet been decided, but United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955), previously had held that the privilege was not a defense to prosecution for failure to file the occupational tax returns. Mackey therefore was compelled to file his returns, thereby necessarily identifying himself as a gambler and thus risking self-incrimination. Accordingly, there were two related reasons to view the disclosures made in Mackey as compelled incriminations. The first was the inherently incriminating nature of the information demanded by the Government. See supra, at 658. The second was the gambler’s inability to claim the privilege by refusing to file at the time Mackey’s disclosures were required. Cf. Mackey, 401 U. S., at 704 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, 27-28 (1969); Grosso, 390 U. S., at 70-71. In the case of gambling tax returns filed after Marchetti and Grosso, the second factor would not be present.

        Marchetti and Grosso, of course, removed the threat of a criminal conviction when one validly claims the privilege by failing to file gambling tax returns. We do not pause here to consider whether there may be circumstances that would deprive a gambler of the free choice to claim the privilege by failing to file, such returns, and therefore allow him to exclude a completed gambling tax return by claiming the privilege at trial. Cf. n. 13, supra.

       Garner contends that whatever the case may be with regard to taxpayers in general, a gambler who might be incriminated by revealing his occupation cannot claim the privilege on the return effectively. This contention stems from the fact that certain specialized tax calculations are required only of gamblers. See § 165 (d) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 165 (d); Recent Cases, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 914, 916 n. 13 (1973). Garner argues that the process of claiming the privilege with respect to these calculations will reveal a gambler’s occupation. We need not address this contention, since Gamer found it unnecessary to make any such special calculations. 501 F. 2d, at 237 n. 3.

       Garner contends that California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424 (1971), cast doubt on Sullivan’s dictum. The Court held in Byers that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated by a statute requiring motorists involved in automobile accidents to stop and identify themselves. Garner argues that Byers suggests that governments always can compel answers to neutral regulatory inquiries in a self-reporting scheme and that the protection of the Fifth Amendment should be afforded in such cases solely through use immunity.
      We cannot agree that Byers undercut Sullivan’s dictum. Although there was not a majority of the Court for any rationale for the Byers holding, the Court addressed there only the basic requirement that one’s name and address be disclosed. The opinions upholding the requirement suggested that the privilege might be claimed appropriately against other questions. 402 U. S., at 434 n. 6 (plurality opinion); id., at 457-458 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). Byers is thus analogous to Sullivan, holding only that requiring certain basic disclosures fundamental to a neutral reporting scheme does not violate the privilege.

       The Murdock cases involved predecessor statutes to § 7203, but they were identical to it in all material respects. See Internal Revenue Act of 1926, § 1265, 44 Stat. 850-851; Internal Revenue Act of 1928, § 146 (a), 45 Stat. 835.

       Because § 7203 proscribes “willful” failures to make returns, a taxpayer is not at peril for every erroneous claim of privilege. The Government recognizes that a defendant could not properly be convicted for an erroneous claim of privilege asserted in good faith. This concession simply reflects our holding in Murdock II. There Murdock’s claim of privilege was considered unjustified (because of the holding in Murdock I disapproved in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n). But the Court recognized that “good faith” in its assertion would entitle Murdock to acquittal.
      “[T]he Government, ... we think correctly, assumed that it carried the burden of showing more than a mere voluntary failure to supply information, with intent, in good faith, to exercise a privilege granted the witness by the Constitution.” 290 U. S.. at 397.
      See United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973). In this respect, the protection for the taxpayer in a § 7203 prosecution is broader than that for a witness who risks contempt to challenge a judicial order to disclose. In the latter case, a mere erroneous refusal to disclose warrants a sanction. See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 460-461 (1975).

       The Government advised us at oral argument that a claim of privilege would stimulate rulings by the Service. It is doubtful, therefore, that a claimant would find himself prosecuted with no prior indication that the Service considered his claim invalid. The claimant, however, would not have a judicial assessment of his claim.

       See n. 17, supra.

         No language in this opinion is to be read as allowing a taxpayer desiring the protection of the privilege to make disclosures concurrently with a claim of privilege and thereby to immunize himself against the use of such disclosures. If a taxpayer desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it instead of making disclosures. Any other rule would deprive the Government of its choice between compelling the evidence from the claimant in exchange for immunity and avoiding the burdens of immunization by obtaining the evidence elsewhere. See Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S., at 711-713 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment).

       Indeed, as the Court notes, ante, at 663 n. 18, the Court held that Murdock was entitled to acquittal if his assertion of the privilege was in good faith. United, States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933) (Murdock II).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Me. Justice Rehnquist Me. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Brennan.

license: Public Domain

text:
    McKinney v. Alabama
    No. 74-532.
    Argued December 15, 1975
    Decided March 23, 1976
    Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 677. Brennan, J., filed a separate opinion, in which Marshall, J., joined, and in all but Part III of which Stewart, J., joined, post, p. 678. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gilbert H. Deitch.

      Joseph G. L. Marston III, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William J. Baxley, Attorney General.

        Barbara Scott filed a brief for the American Publishers, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Me. Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of selling material which had been judicially declared obscene. At his trial he was not permitted to litigate the obscenity vel non of the publication which was the basis of his prosecution, even though he had not been a party to the earlier civil adjudication in which it was held obscene. We granted certiorari, 422 U. S. 1040 (1975), to consider whether this procedure comported with our decisions delineating the safeguards which must attend attempts by the States to prohibit dissemination of expression asserted to be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments against such interference. We reverse.

I

Pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by Ala. Code, Tit. 14, c. 64A (Supp. 1973), the District Attorney of the 13th Judicial Circuit of Alabama instituted an action in equity in the Circuit Court of Mobile County seeking an adjudication of the obscenity of certain mailable matter. On February 26, 1970, the Circuit Court entered a decree which announced that the four magazines named in the action were “judicially declared to be obscene.” Twelve days later two officers of the State Attorney General's office went to the Paris Bookstall in Birmingham, Ala., a place of business operated by petitioner. They personally delivered to petitioner a letter from the Attorney General informing him of the decree of the Circuit Court of Mobile County and specifying the magazines which had been declared obscene.

On March 31, these officers returned to the Paris Bookstall and there purchased, from petitioner, a copy of the magazine New Directions, which had been specified in the Circuit Court decree and listed in the letter delivered to petitioner. Petitioner was thereafter charged with violating Ala. Code, Tit. 14, § 374 (4) (Supp. 1973), by selling “mailable matter known ... to have been judicially found to be obscene.”

At petitioner’s trial for this offense he asserted as a defense his claim that the magazine was not obscene and sought to have this issue submitted to the jury. Petitioner claimed that he could not be found guilty unless the trier of fact in his case made its own determination that the magazine was obscene according to contemporary community standards. The trial court declined to submit this issue to the jury and instructed the jurors that they were not to be concerned with any determination of obscenity, and that they need only decide whether petitioner had sold material judicially declared to be obscene. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed this judgment to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, whereupon the Alabama Supreme Court granted his petition for certio-rari. That court, by a divided vote, also affirmed the judgment of conviction. It ruled that the trial court had properly restricted the issues presented to the jury because the decree of the Mobile County Circuit Court was one in rem, conclusively establishing the obscenity of the magazines against all the world. The determination of obscenity in that action was therefore held binding upon petitioner in his subsequent criminal prosecution even though he had not been a party to the earlier equity proceeding. 292 Ala. 484, 296 So. 2d 228 (1974).

II

Petitioner contends that the procedures utilized by the State of Alabama, insofar as they precluded him from litigating the obscenity vel non of New Directions as a defense to his criminal prosecution, violated the First and Fourteenth Améndments. We agree. While there can be no doubt under our cases that obscene materials are beyond the protection of the First Amendment, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); those decisions have also consistently recognized that the procedures by which a State ascertains whether certain materials are obscene must be ones which ensure “the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression,” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58 (1965); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 489 (1973). The Alabama statutory scheme at issue here, as applied to petitioner, fails to meet this requirement.

It is undisputed that petitioner received no notice of the Mobile Circuit Court equity proceeding, and that he therefore had no opportunity to be heard therein regarding the adjudication of the obscenity vel non of New Directions. Yet the State nevertheless seeks to finally bind him, as well as all other potential purveyors of the magazines described in the Mobile proceeding, to the result reached in that proceeding. There is nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama indicating that petitioner had available to him any judicial avenue for initiating a challenge to the Mobile declaration as to the obscenity of New Directions. Decrees resulting from in rem proceedings initiated under Chapter 64A of the Alabama Code ¡could in some cases therefore have the same effect as would the ex parte determination of a state censorship authority which unilaterally found material offensive and proscribed its distribution. Such a procedure, without any provision for subsequent re-examination of the determination of the censor, would clearly be constitutionally infirm.

The State asserts, however, that the Mobile proceeding was an “adversary judicial proceeding” as contemplated by our decisions, Freedman, supra, at 58; Heller, supra, at 489, and that relevant First Amendment values have thereby been adequately safeguarded. We cannot agree. The Chapter 64A proceeding was indeed “judicial” in the sense that it was presided over by a judge rather than an administrative official. But the State's claim regarding the adversary nature of the in rem proceeding is somewhat wide of the mark.

It is not altogether clear from this record precisely what transpired at the hearing in which New Directions was declared obscene. It does appear that there were, in addition to the several magazines named as “respondents” in the proceeding, an individual and a corporate respondent: “Chris Zarocastas, individually and d/b/a Nelson’s News Stand; [and] Nelson’s News Stand, Inc., a Corporation, d/b/a Nelson’s News Stand.” The State contends that the existence of these named parties provides sufficient adverseness in the proceedings to permit its use of the adjudication thus obtained to bind non-parties such as petitioner.

Our difficulty with this argument is its assumption that the named parties’ interests are sufficiently identical to those of petitioner that they will adequately protect his First Amendment rights. There is no indication that they are in privity with him, as that term is used in determining the binding effects of judgments. See Litchfield v. Goodnow’s Adm’r, 123 U. S. 549, 551 (1887). And we recognized in Freedman that‘individual exhibitors as well as distributors may be unwilling, for various reasons, to oppose a state claim of obscenity regarding certain material. 380 U. S., at 59. Such parties may, of course, make their own determination whether and how vigorously to assert their own First Amendment rights. The Constitution obviously cannot force anyone to exercise the freedom of expression which it guarantees. Those who are accorded an opportunity to be heard in a judicial proceeding established for determining the extent of their rights are properly bound by its outcome, either because they chose not to contest the State’s claim or because they chose to do so and lost.

But it does not follow that a decision reached in such proceedings should conclusively determine the First Amendment rights of others. Nonparties like petitioner may assess quite differently the strength of their constitutional claims and may, of course, have very different views regarding the desirability of disseminating particular materials. We think they must be given the opportunity to make these assessments themselves, as well as the chance to litigate the issues if they so choose.

The State asserts that invalidation of petitioner’s conviction will seriously undermine the use of civil proceedings to examine the protected character of specific materials, procedures which according to respondent offer marked advantages for all concerned over dealing with obscenity only in case-by-case criminal prosecutions. Petitioner, however, was convicted and sentenced in a criminal proceeding wherein the issue of obscenity vel non was held to be concluded against him by the decree in a civil proceeding to which he was not a party and of which he had no notice. Thus we need not condemn civil proceedings in general, see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 55 (1973), to conclude that this procedure fails to meet the standards required where First Amendment interests are at stake.

Petitioner’s conviction must be vacated so that he may be afforded the opportunity to litigate in some forum the issue of the obscenity of New Directions before he may be convicted of selling obscene material. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Me. Justice Blackmun,

concurring.

I concur in the judgment of the Court and I join its opinion on the assumption that the Court is not deciding either of the following propositions:

1. Whether a State may institute in some state court a civil proceeding to adjudicate obscenity and then, merely by notifying publishers and exhibitors of the pendency of such adjudication, thereby bind them everywhere throughout the jurisdiction. I take it, specifically, that the concluding sentence of the fourth-to-last paragraph of the Court’s opinion, ante, at 676, does not resolve that question. If it does, I refrain from joining that resolution.

2. Whether a system which merely allows one to initiate a challenge to an ex parte determination of obscenity is constitutionally proper. I take it that the second paragraph in Part II of the Court’s opinion, ante, at 674, does not resolve that question. If it does, I refrain from joining it. I had believed, in this connection, that it is settled that the burden of proving that a particular expression is unprotected rests on the censor, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58 (1965); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 560 (1975), and is not to be shifted to the other side by a mere “avenue for initiating a challenge.”

I specify these reservations because I feel that each of the stated propositions in the First Amendment area may well be a close and difficult one, that neither has been resolved by this Court, and that, surely, neither needs to be decided in this case.

Mr. Justice Brennan.

I concur insofar as the judgment of conviction is reversed. I have frequently stated my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 73, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Upon that view the Alabama baw on Obscenity, which forbids such dissemination of explicit sexual material to consenting adults, is facially unconstitutional in both its civil and criminal aspects. Therefore, while I agree that petitioner could not constitutionally be convicted and sentenced in a criminal proceeding wherein the issue of obscenity vel non was held to be concluded against him by the decree in a civil proceeding to which he was not a party and of which he had no notice, rather than remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court’s opinion, I would declare the Alabama law unconstitutional and hold that petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted for its violation.

However, since presently prevailing constitutional jurisprudence accords States a broader power to regulate obscenity than I concede, it is appropriate in that circumstance that I state my concern that the Alabama law contains provisions that violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they impermissibly create the risk that citizens will shy away from disseminating or possessing literature and materials that the entire Court would agree are constitutionally protected. See Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974).

I

The Alabama Law on Obscenity takes a form that is gaining increasing favor among the States. It permits a test of the issue of obscenity in a civil action prior to any exposure to a criminal penalty. This Court has acknowledged the value of this approach to the solution of the vexing problem of reconciling state efforts to suppress sexually oriented expression with the prohibitions of the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. “Instead of requiring the bookseller to dread that the offer for sale of a book may, without prior warning, subject him to a criminal prosecution with the hazard of imprisonment, the civil procedure assures him that such consequences cannot follow unless he ignores a court order specifically directed to him for a prompt and carefully circumscribed determination of the issue of obscenity.” Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 442 (1957). “[S]uch a procedure provides an exhibitor or p”rveyor of materials the best possible notice, prior to any criminal indictments, as to whether the materials are unprotected by the First Amendment and subject to state regulation.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, supra, at 55. See generally Lockhart, Escape from the Chill of Uncertainty: Explicit Sex and the First Amendment, 9 Ga. L. Rev. 533, 569-587 (1975).

The Alabama statute, enacted in 1961 and expressly styled the Alabama Law on Obscenity, Ala. Act. No. 856, Ala. Code, Tit. 14, c. 64A (Supp. 1973), recites in § 2 that the Act’s purpose is to provide public prosecutors with both a speedy civil remedy for obtaining a judicial determination of the character and contents of publications and an effective power to reach persons responsible for the composition, publication, and distribution of obscene publications within the State. To that end, the statute distinguishes between “mailable” and “nonmailable” matter. This case concerns only the provisions governing “mailable” matter, defined as printed or written material “having second class mailing privileges under the laws of the United States,” or which has not been “determined to be nonmailable” under such laws. § 3. A criminal prosecution based upon “mailable” matter may be brought only when such matter has been, to the defendant’s knowledge, “judicially found to be obscene” in a prior civil proceeding under the Act. § 4. A prosecuting attorney (solicitor for any judicial circuit or county solicitor) may commence “an action In Equity ... for an adjudication of the obscenity of the mailable matter” if he has “reasonable cause to believe that any person, with knowledge of its contents,” is shipping mailable obscene publications into Alabama or is selling such publications in the State. § 5. The action is “directed against the mailable matter by name or description” and the respondents are the “author, publisher and any other person” responsible for offering the matter “for sale or commercial distribution” in the State or “giving it away or offering to give it away, or possessing it with the intent to sell or commercially distribute or exhibit or give away or offer to give it away.” § 6. Upon the filing of the complaint and the exhibits, the court “as soon as practicable” must examine the materials and ex parte dismiss the complaint “[i]f there is no probable cause to believe that the mailable matter... is obscene.” § 7. If, however, the court finds probable cause, “it may forthwith issue an order temporarily restraining and prohibiting the sale or distribution of such matter” and issue an order to show cause, “returnable not less than ten days after its service,” why the matter shall not be adjudicated obscene. Ibid. A full adversary hearing follows, to “be heard and disposed of with the maximum promptness and dispatch commensurate with constitutional requirements, including due process, freedom of press and freedom of speech.” § 9. The proceeding is to be conducted under the Rules of Civil Procedure in equity cases. If, after a full hearing, a publication is found obscene, the respondents may be enjoined from further distribution of that publication in Alabama, and respondents residing in Alabama may be required to dispose of such publications in their possession. § 10. An injunction is binding “only upon the Respondents to the action and upon tlfose persons in active concert or participation . . . with such Respondents who receive actual notice . . . § 11. Disobedience of an injunction constitutes contempt of court by any respondent or by “any person in active concert or participation by contract or agreement with such respondent, [who receives] actual notice” of the injunction. § 13. If any respondent fails to comply with an order to dispose of the matter, the court may direct the sheriffs in the State to “seize and destroy all such obscene mailable matter.” § 10 (c). .

The civil provisions are so interwoven with the Act’s criminal and other general provisions, § 4, that the constitutional questions raised by them cannot be properly addressed, in my view, without considering the entire Act as it bears upon “mailable” material. This conclusion is underscored by a “cumulative” obscenity law addressed to “hard-core” pornography enacted by Alabama in 1969. Ala. Code, Tit. 14, c. 64C, §§ 374 (16j-16o) (Supp. 1973). Section 374 (16k) (c) of that statute provides that the prohibition against selling, exhibiting, or possessing such materials shall not “be deemed to apply to mailable matter unless such mailable matter is known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene or to represent hard-core pornography under this chapter or under the provisions of any other Alabama statutes.”

I shall not discuss all of the provisions that raise questions but only those that appear to me most clearly to be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

II

Burden of Proof

There can be no question that uncertainty inheres in the definition of obscenity. It is therefore to be expected that those who market written material pertaining to sex should, from fear of criminal prosecution, refrain from handling what may be constitutionally protected literature on that subject. It is this hazard to material protected by the First Amendment which commends Alabama's efforts to minimize that hazard by its regulatory scheme. A civil procedure that complies with the commands of the First Amendment and due process may serve the public interest in controlling obscenity without exposing the marketer to the risks and the stigma of a criminal prosecution, and thus protect, by minimizing the risk of marketer self-censorship, the right to the free publication and dissemination of constitutionally protected literature. But by shifting the determination of obscenity vel non to the civil context, the Alabama scheme creates another potential danger that the dissemination of constitutionally protected material will be suppressed.

Although the Act does not specify which party has the burden of proof in the civil proceeding, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the burden is on the State to prove the obscenity of the magazines, 292 Ala. 484, 487, 296 So. 2d 228, 231 (1974), and it appears that the State may do so by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5. However, I think that the hazards to First Amendment freedoms inhering in the regulation of obscenity require that even in such a civil proceeding, the State comply with the more exacting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Inherent in all factfinding procedures is the potential for erroneous judgments and, when First Amendment values are implicated, the selection of a standard of proof of necessity implicates the relative constitutional acceptability of erroneous judgments. “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value . . . this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden ... of persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of [the existence of the fact] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958). See, e. g., In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 369-372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) ; cf. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U. S. 29, 49-51 (1971) (opinion of Brennan, J.). In the civil adjudication of obscenity vel non, the bookseller has at stake such an “interest of transcending value” — protection of his right to disseminate and the public’s right to receive material protected by the First Amendment. Protection of those rights demands that the factfinder be almost certain — convinced beyond a reasonable doubt — that the materials are not constitutionally immune from suppression. Although Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), held that the concept of obscenity as defined in that case is not unconstitutionally vague, we have “expressly recognized the complexity of the test of obscenity .. . and the vital necessity in its application of safeguards to prevent denial of 'the protection of freedom of speech and press’ ” for nonobscene material. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 730 (1961). “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 66 (1963). The uncertainty of that line means that erroneous judgments as to whether material is obscene or not are likely in any event, and are particularly so if the factfinder is only marginally confident that the material falls on the unprotected side of the line. In light of the command of the First Amendment, a standard of proof by a mere preponderance of the evidence poses too substantial a danger that protected material will be erroneously suppressed. Moreover, the potential danger of such erroneous determinations is especially acute in light of the fact that the civil proceeding and the interim restraint pending adjudication on the merits operate as a prior restraint; indeed, the possibility of an erroneous determination is heightened by the fact that the material may never be available to the public and thus need never have truly faced the acid test of acceptance under prevailing community standards. Furthermore, in light of the definition of obscenity — incorporating, as it does under current law, the notion of patent offensiveness to the average member of the community — there is an even greater need for the judge operating as sole factfinder to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the material is obscene, for his determination is made without a jury’s assessment of community values.

Moreover, the possible erroneous imposition of civil sanctions under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard simply creates too great a risk of self-censorship by those engaged in dissemination of printed material pertaining to sex. Cf. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). Just as the improper allocation of the burden of proof “will create the danger that the legitimate utterance will be penalized” and may thus cause persons to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone,” Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 526, the application of a preponderanee-of-the-evidence standard rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt could cause affected persons to be overly careful about the material in which they deal. While the threat of prosecution and punishment in a criminal proceeding may be greater than the threat of economic loss in civil proceedings, the difference is one of degree. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 277-278 (1964). The inevitable tendency of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — by forcing persons dealing in marginal material to make hard judgments as to whether such material is obscene in order to avoid civil sanctions — would be to limit the volume of at least the marginal material a bookseller could permissibly handle, and thus “restrict the public’s access to forms of the printed word which the State could not constitutionally suppress directly.” Smith v. California, supra, at 154. This “self-censorship, compelled by the State, would be a censorship affecting the whole public, hardly less virulent for being privately administered.” Ibid.

Related to these arguments is another consideration which has particular force in the context where a State purports to make a civil determination of obscenity conclusively binding in a subsequent criminal trial, such as is the case under Alabama’s Law on Obscenity. The First Amendment proscribes criminalizing the sale of literature in general. However, criminal statutes prohibiting the sale of obscene literature have been held to be constitutionally permissible. At least two elements must coalesce to constitute such a crime: (1) some overt act or intent to perform some act beyond mere possession concerning (2) obscene material. Each of these two elements would otherwise have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding, for it is settled that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 364. The requirement that obscenity be proved beyond a reasonable doubt may not be diluted by transporting the determination to a prior civil proceeding, for the essence of the “crime” in reality remains the sale of obscene literature rather than disobedience of a court injunction.

The dangers emanating from the increased likelihood of error resulting from a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — the likelihood of self-censorship and the erroneous proscription of constitutionally protected material— are no less great in civil than in criminal regulation; if anything, the actual margin of error even under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard may be greater in civil proceedings since judges and juries may be more reluctant to declare material obscene in a criminal proceeding where incarceration will follow as a consequence. Both proceedings thus present the same hazards to First Amendment freedoms, and those hazards may only be reduced to a tolerable level by applying the same rigorous burden of proof.

Ill

Jury Trial

This Court has held that a jury trial is not a constitutional requirement in a state civil proceeding determining the obscenity vel non of written materials. Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U. S. 836 (1973). However, in light of the Court’s definition of those materials which are beyond the pale of constitutional protection, a jury trial even in civil proceedings serves a salutary function.

“The jury represents a cross-section of the community and has a special aptitude for reflecting the view of the average person. Jury trial of obscenity therefore provides a peculiarly competent application of the standard for judging obscenity which, by its definition, calls for an appraisal of material according to the average person’s application of contemporary community standards. A statute which does not afford the defendant, of right, a jury determination of obscenity falls short, in my view, of giving proper effect to the standard fashioned as the necessary safeguard demanded by the freedoms of speech and press for material which is not obscene. Of course, as with jury questions generally, the trial judge must initially determine that there is a jury question, i. e., that reasonable men may differ whether the material is obscene.” Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 448 (1957) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Although the Court has rejected the contention that the Federal Constitution imposes the requirement of such a jury trial on a State conducting a civil proceeding, it is nevertheless clear that a jury is the most appropriate factfinder on the issue of obscenity, assuming the judge, as he must, has initially determined that the material is not protected as a matter of law. See, e. g., Miller v.California, 413 U. S., at 25-26. Trial by jury is particularly appropriate if the State chooses to enact a statute such as Alabama’s which makes the civil determination of obscenity conclusive in a later criminal proceeding involving the parties to the civil action, and States are of course free to adopt such a factfinding procedure as the fairest and most accurate reflection of community-standards.

IV

Effect of the Obscenity Determination in Civil Proceedings on the Criminal Proceeding

Accepting as I must for present purposes the Court’s current view of the constitutional permissibility of laws forbidding the dissemination of obscene materials, I do not perceive any constitutional defect in a State’s criminalizing the knowing sale of material judicially determined to be obscene, provided, of course, that obscenity was determined beyond a reasonable doubt at a proceeding in which the accused was a party and of which he received adequate notice. However, one problem with such a scheme deserves comment. Under prevailing constitutional doctrine, material cannot be proscribed unless, inter alia, “ ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . [and] describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.” Miller v. California, supra, at 24 (emphasis supplied). Community standards are inherently in a state of flux, and there is a substantial danger that a civil proceeding declaring given printed matter obscene will forever preclude its introduction into the community, even if the community would no longer view it as “patently offensive” or appealing to the “prurient interest.” Some of the most celebrated works of our generation would likely have been the pornography of a prior generation. Thus, I would require that, at a minimum, a person charged with dissemination of material knowing it to have been judicially determined to be obscene in a civil proceeding to which he was a party should be permitted to interject into the criminal trial a claim that community standards had evolved from the time of the civil proceeding to the time the acts for which he was charged were committed. If there is some colorable showing of such a change, I believe that the First Amendment and due process would require that the State again demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, in the criminal proceeding, that the material was contemporaneously constitutionally “obscene.” Cf. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975).

V

The Possession Provisions

Another potential effect of civil determinations under the Alabama law will be to deter all the acts proscribed by the statute with respect to the material declared obscene. This is precisely what the statute is meant to do. and generally the Constitution does not assure that acts may be performed with safety in connection with material judicially declared obscene. This is not true, however, with respect to the mere “possession” of obscene material.

The Act has two provisions that affect possession of obscene material. One provision renders possession of “mailable matter known ... to have been judicially found to be obscene under this chapter” a misdemeanor subject to a possible fine of $500 and up to six months’ imprisonment, or both. § 4 (2). This provision is invalid because the First Amendment prohibits States from regulating possession unrelated to distribution or public exhibition. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969).

The other provision affecting possession of obscene material, § 15, provides that the possession of “any three of the things enumerated in . . . [§ 4] (except the possession of them for the purpose of return to the person from whom received)” creates a rebuttable presumption that they are intended for dissemination, and the burden of proof that their possession is for the purpose of return is on the possessor. At the least this presumption shifts to defendants the burden of going forward with the evidence on the issue of possession for the purpose of distribution; and if the possessor seeks to explain possession on the ground that he is holding the materials for return, he has the burden of proof on the issue. Mere possession of obscene material for personal use may not be penalized. The obvious danger in creating a presumption that possession is for the purpose of dissemination is that lawful possession will be penalized or that persons will refrain from lawfully possessing arguably protected material. “The man who knows that he must bring forth proof and persuade another of the lawfulness of his conduct necessarily must steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the State must bear these burdens.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). The Alabama law poses a particular hazard in this regard, because the presumption takes effect once the defendant is shown to have possessed “any three of the things enumerated in” § 4. The “things” enumerated in § 4 are nonmailable obscene matter and mailable matter judicially declared obscene under the Act. Apparently, the presumption would come into play if a person possessed one copy of three different works which fit the statute’s description. This would in effect limit persons to the unregulated possession of a maximum of two “things” in their libraries. But even if the presumption were to apply only upon proof of possession of three copies of the same item, it might result in punishment and deterrence of lawful activity, since the right to possess obscene material for personal use is not limited to one or two copies of each item. Juries are not so ingenuous that they will fail to draw reasonable inferences from the possession of multiple copies of obscene works. There is no necessity to add to the weight of such evidence presumptions and shifts in the burden of proof which jeopardize the exercise of free speech.

I concur insofar as the conviction of petitioner is reversed.

Mr. Justice Marshall joins this opinion.

Mr. Justice Stewart joins all but Part III of this opinion.

       Chapter 64A provides in pertinent part:
      “§ 374 (5). Equitable action to adjudicate obscenity of mailable matter imported, sold or possessed. — Whenever the solicitor for any judicial circuit or county solicitor has reasonable cause to believe that any person, with knowledge of its contents, is (1) engaged in sending or causing to be sent, bringing or causing to be brought, into this state for sale or commercial distribution, or is (2) in this state, preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing or giving away, or offering to give away, or has in his possession with intent to sell, or commercially distribute, or to exhibit or give away or offer to give away, any obscene mailable matter, the solicitor for the judicial circuit or county into which such mailable matter is sent or caused to be sent, brought or caused to be brought, or in which it is prepared, sold, exhibited or commercially distributed or given away or offered to be given away, or possessed, may institute an action in equity in the circuit court or any court having equity jurisdiction of the affected county for an adjudication of the obscenity of the mailable matter.
      “§374 (6). Same; complaint. — The action authorized by section 374 (5) shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint to which shall be attached, as an exhibit, a true copy of the allegedly obscene mailable matter. The complaint shall:
      “(a) be directed against the mailable matter by name or description;
      “(b) allege its obscene nature;
      “(c) designate as respondents and list the names and addresses, as known, of its author, publisher and any other person sending or causing it to be sent, bringing or causing it to be brought into this state for sale or commercial distribution, and of any person in this state preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing it, or giving it away or offering to give it away, or possessing it with the intent to sell or commercially distribute or exhibit or give away or offer to give it away;
      “(d) pray for an adjudication that it is obscene;
      “(e) pray for a permanent injunction against any person sending or causing it to be sent, bringing or causing it to be brought, into this State for sale or commercial distribution, or in this state preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing it, giving away or offering to give it away, or possessing it with the intent to sell or commercially distribute or exhibit or give away or offer to give it away; and
      “(f) pray for its surrender, seizure and destruction.”

       "§ 374 (4). Importation, sale or possession of obscene printed or written matter; penalties. — (1) Every person who, with knowledge of its contents, sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or commercial distribution, or in this state prepares, sells, exhibits or commercially distributes, or gives away or oifers to give away, or has in his possession with intent to sell or commercially distribute, or to give away or offer to give away, any obscene printed or written matter or material, other than mailable matter, or any mailable matter known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene , under this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than one year, and may be fined not more than two thousand dollars for each offense, or be both so imprisoned and fined in the discretion of the court.
      “(2) Every person who,-with knowledge of its contents, has in his possession any obscene printed or written matter or material, other than mailable matter, or any mailable matter known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene under this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months, or may be fined not more than five hundred dollars for each offense, or be both so imprisoned and fined in the discretion of the court.”

       Indeed, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he even possessed any copies of that magazine at the time the equity proceeding was commenced. If he did not, it would certainly be quixotic to expect him to anticipate later developing such an interest in the outcome of those proceedings as to prompt him to seek an opportunity to be heard therein.

       The publishers of the named magazines were presumably served with notice of the injunctive action in accordance with Ala. Code, Tit. 14, §374 (7) (Supp. 1973).

       The decree recites that “all parties [were] present and represented by counsel,” but does not name them, and the record does not otherwise indicate the extent of their participation. App. 100.

       Because we conclude that the obscenity vel non of the publication for the sale of which petitioner was convicted has not yet been properly considered by the state courts, we need not pass upon petitioner’s claims that the publication was not obscene as a matter of law and that the Alabama statute defining obscenity is imper-missibly vague.

       Persons may be criminally prosecuted with respect to “non-mailable” matter without a prior declaration of obscenity in a civil proceeding. § 4. The term “nonmailable” is used in 18 U. S. C. § 1461 to include far more than merely things obscene, and it is still unsettled who is empowered to make findings of non-mailability and under what circumstances, see Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478 (1962). Since this case involves only “mailable” matter, however, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the term “nonmailable,” despite its uncertain content, may constitutionally be used in any degree to prove obscenity or a defendant’s requisite state of mind.

       Compliance with this provision should limit the duration of any ex parte interim restraint granted pursuant to § 7, although in my view explicit time limits would be preferable. For example, the provision for interim restraints in the New York statute approved in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 (1957), was in the context of a statute that specified that “[t]he person ... sought to be enjoined shall be entitled to a trial of the issues within one day after joinder of issue and a decision shall be rendered by the court within two days of the conclusion of the trial.” Id., at 438 n. 1. And this Court construed 19 U. S. C. § 1305 (a), which prohibits importation of obscene material, as requiring administrative and judicial action within time limits specified by the Court, thus avoiding the constitutional issue that would be presented under the principle applied in such decisions as Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-59 (1965), and Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410 (1971). United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363 (1971).

       While the Alabama law provides that the action shall be filed “in equity,” § 5, the Alabama Supreme Court on July 3, 1973, adopted Rules of Civil Procedure under which there is now only one form of action known as a “Civil Action.” 292 Ala. 484, 487, 296 So. 2d 228, 230 (1974).

       Indeed, one of the problems with erroneous determinations that prevent marginal material from ever reaching the public is that such material, which is by definition at the fringe of what is currently patently offensive to community standards, will never be able to exert an influence on those inherently evolving standards.

       1 fully agree with the Court that a State may not make any civil proceeding binding in a criminal proceeding involving an individual who was not a party to and who did not receive notice of the civil proceeding. Moreover, a State cannot use the result in a civil proceeding to bind a criminal defendant on any element of a crime as a matter of collateral estoppel. However, I do not think the Constitution prohibits a State from making it a crime to disseminate material which was judicially determined to be obscene beyond a reasonable doubt in a prior civil proceeding in which the criminal accused participated. In such a case, the State will still be proving every element of the crime at the criminal trial.

       Similarly, a State would of course have to prove obscenity beyond a reasonable doubt at the criminal trial if the civil proceeding was brought in a jurisdiction that applied a different “community standard” from the one in which the alleged crime occurred. This Court has held that obscenity must be determined by applying “contemporary community standards” and that a State may adopt a “state” rather than a “national” community standard. E. g., Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974); Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974). When a State adopts such a “state” or “national” community standard, a civil proceeding brought in one part of the State could constitutionally be employed as a conclusive determination anywhere in the State with respect to an accused who was a party to that proceeding. Since Alabama has adopted such a “state” standard, see, e. g., 292 Ala. 484, 487, 296 So. 2d 228, 230 (1974), its statutory scheme is not constitutionally defective in this regard. However, a State might adopt the standard of a smaller community — for example, a city-wide community; it could not then make it a crime to disseminate material judicially determined to be obscene in a civil proceeding in which the accused participated, unless the civil proceeding also transpired in the same “community” as the criminal proceeding.