## Facts

- In a federal criminal case, McNeil sought court-appointed counsel and was required to submit a financial affidavit to establish eligibility under the Criminal Justice Act.
- On the affidavit, McNeil omitted assets, including real estate and financial accounts, some held in fictitious names.
- The omissions were material to the court’s determination of whether McNeil qualified for publicly funded counsel.
- The government charged McNeil under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making materially false statements in a matter within federal jurisdiction, treating the financial affidavit as a covered “statement.”

## Issues

1. Whether false statements or omissions on a financial affidavit submitted to a federal court to obtain appointed counsel are exempt from prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 due to the 1996 judicial-branch limitation (judicial-function exception).
2. How the 1996 amendment limiting § 1001’s application to the judicial branch should be construed as applied to administrative, benefit-seeking submissions made to courts.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed McNeil’s conviction.
- The court held that the judicial-function exception did not exempt McNeil’s false statements on the financial affidavit.
- The affidavit was characterized as an administrative, benefit-seeking submission intended to induce expenditure of public funds, not an advocacy-related or adjudicative submission protected by the exception.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 1001 applies to materially false statements made to the judicial branch when the statements are administrative or collateral to adjudication, such as submissions seeking publicly funded benefits.
- The 1996 judicial-function exception is not a categorical bar to § 1001 prosecutions for statements made in connection with court proceedings; it is limited to certain statements tied to adjudicative functions and litigation advocacy.
- Courts interpret the amended § 1001 primarily through statutory text and structure; legislative history is used only if the statute is genuinely ambiguous and otherwise serves a confirmatory role.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that materially false omissions on a court financial affidavit used to determine eligibility for appointed counsel remain prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because the judicial-function exception does not shield administrative, benefit-seeking misrepresentations to the courts.


United States v. McNeil, 362 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2004)