United States v. Miller (1985)

Last updated
United States v Miller
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 16, 1985
Decided April 1, 1985
Full case nameUnited States v James Rual Miller
Docket no. 83-1750
Citations471 U.S. 130 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior728 F.2d 1269, 715 F.2d 1360
Holding
The Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a trial jury finds a defendant guilty without having found all of an indictment's parts proven.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
V Amendment, Grand Jury Clause
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887)

United States v. James Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved. This case partly overruled Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), in that a grand jury's indictment is not "final", and its scope for conviction may be narrowed by the prosecution during trial. This case allows for prosecutors to simply prove a defendant committed criminal acts at least mentioned in an indictment, but need not prove all the allegations in their entirety.

Contents

Historical Context

James Rual Miller was the owner of San Francisco Scrap Metals Inc, a company which purchased scrap wires in bulk, stripped them, and resold them for profit. [1] [2] Miller was charged with violating 3 counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341) when on July 15, 1981, he reported 201,000 pounds of copper wire were stolen from his business to the police, and subsequently to his business insurance provider Aetna. Suspicions arose when it was discovered that only weeks prior to the alleged theft, Miller had increased his insurance policy coverage from $50,000 to $150,000, a policy which coincidentally was set to expire on the day of the theft.

Throughout the proceedings, evidence showed that Miller had inflated the amount of copper wire that was stolen, and thus its value, to Aetna. This was shown by business records from a company showing Miller buying an amount of copper wire but also selling it to another company, this was further cemented by testimony from various employees of Miller's company saying there was "no way" Miller had anything close to 201,000 pounds of copper wire on hand. Ultimately, the charges rested on the fact that Miller's claim for compensation was sent through the mail, and that $50,000 of the $150,000 in compensation from Aetna was also sent through the mail. Miller's third charge was also subsequently dropped.

The indictment in question alleged all of these claims, and purportedly the fact that Mr. Miller had prior knowledge and consented to the burglary to claim the insurance money. The prosecution during his trial managed to prove that Miller had inflated the amount of copper he had at his business, however did not attempt to prove any fact that Miller had known and consented to the burglary beforehand. After the prosecution had rested their case, it moved to strike the "false burglary" part of the indictment, which was opposed by the defense and by the court. The defense then moved for a directed verdict of not guilty which was denied, and a subsequent motion at the conclusion of all the evidence was also denied. After the trial concluded, the judge instructed the jury that the government only had to prove "one or more of the acts" in order to prove the scheme. With this instruction the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Reversal

After his conviction, Miller subsequently filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which made its decision on September 13, 1983. [2] The Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Miller and reversed his conviction, saying,

"Because we conclude that the government failed to prove the scheme pleaded in the indictment, we reverse Miller's conviction." [2] - 9th Cir. Opinion. Circuit Judge John Weld Peck II.

The basis for the reversal rests on the indictment, which reads,

"6. It was a further part of the scheme that (James Rual Miller) well knew that the alleged burglary was committed with his knowledge and consent for the purpose of obtaining the insurance proceeds." (previous sections omitted)

The court found Miller's argument persuasive, in that the government through the indictment had to prove "a unitary scheme to defraud" committed by Miller, which the prosecution did not in its entirety prove. He argued that due to the prosecution failing to prove he had prior knowledge of the burglary, and therefore failing to prove the scheme laid out in the indictment, his Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury was violated. The Court agreed, stating,

"In United States v. Mastelotto, [3] 717 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1983), this court held that "[a mail fraud] defendant cannot be convicted of a count charging participation in a fraudulent scheme Y where the grand jury indicted based on his participation in a fraudulent scheme X, even if the schemes themselves overlap or are concentric." [2]

So with its opinion the Circuit Court vacated Miller's conviction, a decision which Solicitor General Rex E. Lee appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Argued on January 16, 1985, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and announced its decision on April 1 of the same year. With a unanimous decision the Court ruled in favor of the United States, thereby vacating the judgement of the Circuit Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court, with Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. not participating.

The decision was based on the fact the Circuit Court of Appeal's decision was apparently contradictory to many other Fifth Amendment cases the Supreme Court had decided in the past, such as Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, stating,

"Convictions generally have been sustained as long as the proof upon which they are based corresponds to an offense that was clearly set out in the indictment. A part of the indictment unnecessary to and independent of the allegations of the offense proved may normally be treated as "a useless averment" that "may be ignored." Ford v. United States, [4] 273 U.S. at 273 U. S. 602." [2]

It cited the important case of Ex parte Bain which held a very strict interpretation of the right to a grand jury, in essence saying that nothing could be added or removed from an indictment, no matter how trivial, without the consent of the grand jury. This decision however upheld the part of Bain which long said that, "nothing can be added to an indictment without the concurrence of the grand jury by which the bill was found" (as cited in United States v Norris, [5] 281 U.S. 619 (1930)). However, it overrule Bain in part, saying,

"To the extent Bain stands for the proposition that it constitutes an unconstitutional amendment to drop from an indictment those allegations that are unnecessary to an offense that is clearly contained within it, that case has simply not survived. To avoid further confusion, we now explicitly reject that proposition."

The Court argues that eroding this part of Bain isn't a radical step, saying that the "removal" of a part or allegation of an indictment hasn't been a very commonly used argument.

With that, a part of Bain was overruled, something the Court considered even further in United States v. Cotton 535 U.S. 625 (2002).

Related Research Articles

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 1943 term.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the level of proof required to establish the affirmative defense of duress in a federal criminal case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other amendments, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), was a United States Supreme Court case involving grand jury indictments.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honest services fraud</span> Crime in the United States

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal statute criminalizing mail fraud applied only to the schemes and artifices defrauding victims of money or property, as opposed to those defrauding citizens of their rights to good government. The case was superseded one year later when the United States Congress amended the law to specifically include honest services fraud in the mail and wire fraud statutes.

Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case, which held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed if members of their race were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted them, even if they were convicted following an otherwise fair trial.

Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal law and procedure. By a 5–4 margin it upheld the mail fraud conviction of an Illinois man and resolved a conflict among the appellate circuits over which test to use to determine if a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction allowing conviction on a lesser included charge. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority; Antonin Scalia for the dissent.

<i>United States v. Vampire Nation</i>

United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

<i>Ellis v. United States</i> (1969) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case

Ellis v. United States of America, 416 F.2d 791, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1969. It addressed the question of a witness's refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court concluded that when a non-indicted witness who has waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying voluntarily before a grand jury and with knowledge of their privilege, their waiver extends to a subsequent trial based on an indictment returned by the grand jury that heard their testimony.

United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is not necessary to provide full Miranda warnings to a person called to testify before a grand jury; and that false statements given during that testimony may not be suppressed in a subsequent prosecution for perjury.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court decision that clarified both the scope of the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the limits of an appellate court's discretion to fashion a remedy under section 2106 of Title 28 to the United States Code. It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding the power that appellate courts have under section 2106 to "remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances," a court that reverses a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence may not allow the lower court a choice on remand between acquitting the defendant and ordering a new trial. The "only 'just' remedy" in this situation, the Court held, is to order an acquittal.

Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the 2013 Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as "Bridgegate". The case centered on whether Bridget Anne Kelly, the chief of staff to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who was running for reelection at the time, and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, improperly used lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic jams as a means of retaliation against Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, when he refused to support Christie's reelection campaign. While lower courts had convicted Kelly and Baroni on federal fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy charges, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions in its May 2020 ruling, stating that such charges could not apply as "the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property", and remanded their cases back to the lower courts.

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.

Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) was a United States Supreme Court case relating to the right to a jury trial in criminal cases under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The case was argued on January 16, 2024, and decided on June 21.

Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the conviction of Hans Max Haupt—father of Herbert Hans Haupt— for treason, and that after the Constitution's Treason Clause's two witness requirement is satisfied, it does not preclude the prosecution from entering out-of-court confessions into evidence.

References

  1. ↑ "Solicitor General Petition and Brief for Writ of Certiorari". Justice.gov. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Peck, John. "9th Cir. Opinion - No. 82-1670". casetext.com. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  3. ↑ Fletcher, William. "9th Cir. Opinion No. 81-1678,1679". casetext.com. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  4. ↑ Taft, William. "Supreme Court Opinion No. 312". supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  5. ↑ Sutherland, Georgia. "Supreme Court Opinion No. 555". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.