MacKey v. United States

1971-04-05

Headline: Court refuses to apply new self-incrimination rule retroactively, upholding a pre-1968 income-evasion conviction despite use of monthly gambling tax returns, limiting relief for similar past cases.

Holding: The Court held that the Fifth Amendment rule announced in Marchetti and Grosso does not apply retroactively to overturn Mackey’s pre-Marchetti income-evasion conviction where wagering tax returns were admitted, so the conviction is affirmed.

Real World Impact:

Leaves pre-Marchetti convictions intact despite use of wagering returns.
Limits collateral relief for defendants whose convictions became final before 1968.
Affirms prosecutors’ use of prior gambling returns in income‑evasion trials.

Topics: tax evasion, self-incrimination rights, retroactivity of court rulings, gambling taxes

Summary

Background

Fred T. Mackey, who ran a “policy wheel” gambling operation, was tried in 1964 for willfully evading income taxes for 1956–1960. The Government used the net‑worth method and introduced 60 monthly wagering excise tax returns that Mackey had filed under the wagering tax law. A jury convicted him and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. After this Court’s 1968 decisions in Marchetti and Grosso broadened the Fifth Amendment privilege for gamblers, Mackey moved under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate his sentence.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Marchetti–Grosso rule should be applied retroactively to upset Mackey’s pre‑1968 conviction because the Government had introduced his wagering tax returns at trial. The majority applied the Court’s retroactivity framework (Linkletter and later decisions) and concluded that Marchetti and Grosso should not be given full retroactive sweep. The Court emphasized that the returns were made under oath, were not coerced confessions, and did not undercut confidence in the trial’s result. On that basis, the Court affirmed the denial of collateral relief.

Real world impact

The decision leaves intact convictions finalized before Marchetti and Grosso even when the Government used wagering excise returns in income‑tax prosecutions. It limits the ability of prisoners with final, pre‑Marchetti convictions to obtain collateral relief on that ground and confirms that not all new constitutional rules apply retroactively.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan concurred, arguing wagering returns could properly be used to show unreported income. Justice Harlan concurred in the result but emphasized finality and different rules for direct versus collateral review. Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the new rule should have applied retroactively.