Document: 475 U.S. 66 106 S.Ct. 938 89 L.Ed.2d 50 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Marshall MECHANIK et al. Jerome Otto LILL, Petitioner, v. STATES. Marshall MECHANIK, aka Michael Patrick Flanagan, Nos. 84-1640, 84-1700 and 84-1704. Argued Dec. 2, 1985. Decided Feb. 25, 1986. Syllabus A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging respondents cross-petitioners (hereafter defendants) with drug-related offenses conspiracy, later a superseding expanding the conspiracy charge. Two law enforcement agents testified in tandem before support of indictment. The defendants did not learn about this until second week their trial when Government furnished them transcript testimony. were found guilty after trial, District Court denied motion to dismiss on ground that two agents' simultaneous presence violated Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 6(d), which provides only specified persons including "the witness under examination" may be present at proceeding. Appeals reversed convictions dismissed portion indictment, holding although 6(d) was violated, violation tainted Held: However diligent have been seeking discover basis for claimed petit jury's verdict rendered harmless any error decision flowed from violation. In such case, societal costs retrial are far too substantial justify setting aside simply because Pp. 69-73. 756 F.2d 994 (C.A.4 1985), affirmed part part. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. 73. O'CONNOR, judgment, BRENNAN BLACKMUN, joined, MARSHALL, dissenting 80. Bruce J. Rosen, Madison, Wis., Lill Mechanik, Mark I. Levy, Washington, D.C., Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 states these cases, witnesses jury, indicted Mechanik various commit offenses. Fourth Circuit held even though subsequently against defendants, must set count corresponds "tainted" We believe beyond reasonable doubt demonstrates fortiori there probable cause charge they convicted. Therefore, stand despite rule 2 fairly detailed summary proceedings will help illustrate nature extent our holding. conspiracy. This concededly free claim error. then expanded. United States Attorney presented testimony who sworn together questioned jury. 3 joint began. Before omnibus requesting, inter alia, names all people appeared responded no unauthorized appearing motion. Trial began February 1980, concluded early July same year. During one Jerry Rinehart, agent Drug Enforcement Administration, as witness. At time his testimony, required by Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. disclosed Rinehart fellow agent, Randolph James, had 4 moved dismissal 6(d). Chief Judge Knapp, presiding over he May however, Knapp unexpectedly hospitalized, Copenhaver took judge. rehearing advisement conclusion trial. 5 August its verdict, ruled upon defendants' 511 F.Supp. (SD W.Va.1980). He first decided, contrary Knapp's earlier ruling, Agents James constitute Id., 53-58. But declined because, comparison between indictments evidence rested, harmed defendants. 58-61. justified respect substantive counts materially unchanged valid initial 58-59. With count, expanded "had it ample independent [apart testimony] finding charges." 61. light conclusions, determined post-trial would confer windfall benefit "who convicted three-month conducted enormous expense defendants." Ibid. judge nevertheless undertook ensure future compliance one-witness directing keep court advised concerning criminal cases. 6 divided convictions, others, 735 136 (1984). It reasoned language is so "plain unequivocal limiting appear jury," id., 139, transgression requires automatic reversal subsequent conviction regardless lack prejudice. 139-140. related them. 140. en banc agreed. (1985) (per curiam ). 7 assume sake argument dismissing portions actual prejudice matter called attention commencement reasonably attempting proceeding, acquire showing jointly proceeding Nor suggestion designedly withheld information. When made based view eventually issued ruling resubmitted motion, but long costly brought conclusion. Although we do can faulted diligence, nonetheless hold supervening inappropriate. 8 Both observed designed, part, "to jurors, sitting without direct supervision judge, subject undue influence come person." F.2d, 139. protects danger defendant defend him guilty. involving cases theoretical potential affect determination whether indict particular charged. means charged, also fact charged doubt. Measured then, connected doubt.1 9 might argued some literal sense designed protect erroneous should compared produced if accepted, simple way restore position already suffered whatever inconvenience, expense, opprobrium proper spared him. courtroom elsewhere, moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on." Thus reversible cannot accrued conformity 10 accept Appeals' 52(a) errors affecting rights shall disregarded. see reason apply provision "errors, defects, irregularities, or variances" occurring just applied itself. See Hasting, 461 499, 509, 103 1974, 1981, 76 96 (1983); Chapman California, 386 18, 21-24, 87 824, 826-828, 17 705 (1967); Lane, 474 438, 725, 88 814 (1986). 11 entails social costs: forces witnesses, courts, prosecution, expend further time, energy, other resources repeat has once taken place; victims asked relive disturbing experiences. Morris Slappy, 1, 14, 1610, 1617, 75 610 (1983). "[p]assage erosion memory, dispersion render difficult, impossible." Engle Isaac, 456 107, 127-128, 102 1558, 1571-1572, 71 783 (1982). Thus, while "may, theory, entitle retrial, practice reward accused complete freedom prosecution," 128, S.Ct., 1572, thereby "cost society right punish admitted offenders." 127, 1572. Even intervening delay compromise society's "interest prompt administration justice," supra, U.S., impede accomplishment objectives deterrence rehabilitation. These acceptable often necessary consequence deprived fair issue guilt innocence. balance interest tips decidedly effect outcome 12 express what remedy appropriate affected trial.2 however conceivable proceedings. judgment therefore otherwise affirmed. 13 ordered. 14 concurring. 15 I concur REHNQUIST's write separately state my case controlled Black's Costello States, 350 359, 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). 16 whom BLACKMUN join, judgment. agree obtained aside. analysis adopted determining rules governing conduct juries effectively renders those dead letter, seriously undermining traditional function protecting innocent unwarranted public accusation. principal functions. First, bears weighty responsibility investigating crime committed. Calandra, 414 338, 343, 94 613, 617, 38 561 (1974). second, less important, task "serv[e] invaluable standing accuser accused, latter individual, minority group, other, determine founded dictated intimidating power malice personal ill will." Wood Georgia, 370 375, 390, 82 1364, 1373, 569 (1962). To investigative function, traditionally given "wide latitude" inquiries. 617. Dionisio, 410 17-18, 93 764, 773, 35 67 (1973). Prosecutors accorded similar leeway presenting see, e.g., Adamo, 742 927, 936-938 (CA6 1984), cert. denied, 469 1193, 105 971, 83 975 (1985), bound few, clear carefully drafted approved Congress integrity 19 rule; guard secrecy proceedings, prevent intimidation guarantee opportunity make examination determinations prosecutorial influence. See, Echols, 542 948, 951 (CA5 1976), 431 904, 97 1695, 52 387 (1977); Lill, 50, 55-57 W.Va.1980); C. Wright, Practice & 105, 237, n. (2d ed. 1982). For example, Government, remain investigation going consistent manner, doubted hinder uncovering truth. Similarly, prosecuting attorney room during deliberations contravention Rule, very real possibility arise vote unduly influenced prosecutor's presence. 20 Rules clearly envision violations e.g. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 12(b)(2). Indeed, courts consistently employed deviations imperil independence. 58 (collecting cases). Nadel, Presence Unauthorized Persons State Grand Jury Proceedings Affecting Indictment, 23 A.L.R. 4th (1983) (hereinafter Nadel) dealing rules). sure, established contemplated. presumption regularity, generally dispelled particularized proof irregularities process. Johnson, 319 503, 512-513, 63 1233, 1237-1238, 1546 (1943). And every create likelihood warrant drastic dismissal. dictate impaired accused. 52. 21 inquiry extends "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity variance." Advisory Committee's notes "[t]his restatement existing law," specifically provided objections validity 556 (1946 Ed.). U.S.C.App., 657. does exempt scrutiny. fact, commentary accompanying "generally continues law" expressly refers Ed.), confirming rulemakers' intent among review. Notes 568. 22 Accordingly, logical focus decision. most conducting necessity alleged decision, rather than disclosure materials waiver 12(f) virtually claims 3500; Fed.Rules 6(e)(3)(C)(i), (ii); Dennis 384 855, 868-875, 86 1840, 1848-1852, 973 (1966); Moore, ¶ 6.05[3] 1985) (discussing access above cited authorities). 58, 61 (most reported raised disposed trial). view, when, decides reserve timely diligently pursued returned, court's Yet shifts circumstances violation's assessment regard timing objection. ante, 70-71. concludes automatically applicable rules, nor reconciled precedent. 24 number directly conflict Court: presume existence Fulmer, 722 1192, 1195, 1983); 951; Latham 226 Fed. 420 1915); F.Supp., lower Nadel cases); W. LaFave Israel, 15.6 Other test violations, uniformly evaluated looking likely deliberations, merely significance verdict. Condo, 741 238, 239 (CA9 1984) ), 1164, 924, 936 (1985); Computer Sciences Corp., 689 1181, 1185-1186 (CA4 1982), 459 1105, 729, 74 953 Kahan Lessin Co., 695 1122, 1124 1982) ); Rath, 406 757 (CA6), 394 920, 1196, 453 (1969). per se ultimate applied. Cf. 447-448, 730-731, (1986) (disapproving use analysis). 25 Court's combination rule, gives judges prosecutors powerful incentive consideration motions defect spoken. If convicts, denied; acquits, mooted. approach thus undermines authority exposes ordeal adherence measures proposed implemented able perform properly screening function. 26 makes objection substantially indict, grave effect. 449, ---- - ----; Kotteakos 328 750, 765, 1239, 1248, 90 1557 (1946). postpones 27 impose justice system. prosecution within avoid dismissals adhering dictates obtaining risks dismissals. where unremedied proved, still satisfied resulted improper important witnesses' "substantial influence" Kotteakos, 1248. ----. 28 found, scrupulous record, harmless, wanting appeal. preliminarily that: 29 "It especially significant note review attendance voting records reveals each unanimous vote. nucleus seventeen jurors voted addition, juror others first." 30 first, untainted giving weigh credibility prior appearance. Moreover, both pursuant 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), created collusion available minute. 31 Turning itself, "identical so" superseded "a entirely return [superseded] indictment." 59. counts, "there neither prejudice." could prejudiced objectionable Administration count. 32 eye verdicts, findings negligible. isolated alterations additions After examining would, undoubtedly [the] . separately." reverse insofar affirm regarding cross-petitioners. 33 dissenting. 34 concedes holds, ultimately them, "any doubt." Ante, 70. Because majority's misconceives role harmless-error doctrine, dissent. * today almost unenforceable. As facts litigation demonstrate, difficult uncover. conducts secret, aided witnesses. Defendants entitled transcripts trial; due strictly enforced tradition secrecy, information whatsoever M. Frankel G. Naftalis, 81-89 (1977). Requests 6(e)(3)(C)(ii) materials, "upon grounds exist matters rarely granted; aid seeks discover. 108, pp. 263-265 Defendants' through medium 3500, prosecutor, witness, produce witness' statements. That disclosure, take place begun, piecemeal incomplete basis. 36 There little raise begins. start overwork press events district disposing newly claim. attractive course defer close followed case. time. Under today's deferring meritorious disposes permanently. movant acquitted, moot; convicted, reasoning, harmless. offers busy new unique reduce workload; need judicial assertion suspect judges, faced necessarily middle follow invitation. 37 Should decide scheme insulates appellate Appeal unlikely; never allowed immediate appeal order Flanagan 465 259, 269, 104 1051, 1057, 79 288 (1984).1 today, rulings appealed left unreviewable largesse court. II A. intended practical meaning. legislative history 6, indeed, belies approach. 1933, legal right, law, permit stenographers rooms invalidating defendant." S.Rep. No. 64, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., (1933). adding narrow clause statute, Rev.Stat. 1025 (later codified ed.)), providing insufficient, reversed, room. nowhere expressed disagreement general proposition person invalidates conviction. E.g., Fall, 56 App.D.C. 83, 84, 648, 649 (1925); 420, 424 1915). 39 More recently, amended 1972 incorporate reference provisions Selection Service Act 1968; move Government's failure comply selection array individual jurors. 6(b)(2). advisory challenge either Committee 568 (1972 amendment). hint Congress, mere intellectual exercise. B 40 analysis. recognized denying misconduct, "can work unfair mischievous results." 22, 827, (1967). Denying relief procedural reduces " 'pretend-rules,' Borello, 766 46, (CA2 quoting Antonelli Fireworks 155 631, 661 (CA2) (Frank, dissenting), 329 742, 49, 91 640 (1946); engage prohibited "purely ceremonial" words displeasure. 661. 41 misconduct becomes conviction, pernicious. Contrary 72, refusal demonstrated imposes unacceptable costs. few limitations prosecutor Those text takes up more page official compilation laws. Violations restrictions, majority go undetected allow minimally effective whose violations. 42 Such hamper law. nonexistent exercises control chambers. onerous ambiguous, product adopt safeguards compliance. 15.6, 333 slipping into inadvertent comparable that, say, making ill-worded remark heat Courts 43 goal upholding marred reducing Congress' command form words, Respect demands improperly procured quashed "only upsetting ardor officials kept bounds secured; modern times hands officials." Remington, 208 567, 574 1953) (L. Hand, dissenting).2 III 44 suggests viewed theory misconduct. approach, examine attempt divine finds black-letter prejudicial result indictment," 6.04[7], 6-91 1985).3 unworkable undermine limits imposed investigations. 45 Many reasons rejecting impropriety always reached, context well. Given difficulty discovering certain found. Only sanction obey Rule's commands. Pignatiello, 582 251, 255 (Colo.1984). 46 analysis, moreover, overlooks impossibility impact impossible quantify, apparent transcript. wrote: 47 "A change expression, pressure hand warning glance shown minutes well influence, suppress alter defendant. expressions conversations hesitate repudiate modify other. here contends sisters, '[t]he know represents fact.' think great exercise condoned." Revere, 232 La. 184, 207, So.2d (1957) (emphasis omitted; citations internal quotations omitted). 48 Any case-by-case actually speculative afford meaningful protection, burden outweighs benefits derived. distinction truly dangerous "such pronounced cloak mantle legality yet recognize dangers prohibit it." Carper, 116 817, 821 (DC 1953). 49 finally, require frustrate inquiry. Treadway, 445 959 (ND Tex.1978). discuss goals counsel spread across record. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 418, 424-425, 3133, 3138, 77 743 (1983).4 IV illustrates willing "pretend-rules," denigrating commands eviscerating creates greater escape criminals punishment." Di Re, 332 581, 595, 68 222, 229, 92 210 (1948). done Appeals. Vasquez Hillery, 254, 598 (1986), final racial discrimination composition compelled precedent special problem discrimination. 260-262, 622-623. pernicious, remedies impractical, prophylactic deterring future, 262, 623, discriminatorily selected treat excluded races unfairly. 263-264, 623-624. considerations force outside No line antecedent sort rise level Gerstein Pugh, 103, 119-123, 95 854, 865-867, 54 (1975); Coleman Alabama, 399 10-11, 1999, 2003-2004, (1970); argues "[a]n legally constituted unbiased like drawn face, enough call merits." 363, 408, reach narrower rest Denial conceivably interlocutory collateral-order doctrine Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan 337 541, 69 1221, 1528 (1949). collateral main action wholly Hollywood Motor Car 458 263, 267, 3081, 3083, 73 754 (1982) (claim vindictiveness reviewable conviction); Garner, 632 758 1980) Bird, 709 388, 391, 1983) Our further, inconsistent broad how egregious, "grave constitutional trespass" discrimination, ----, process refutes rationale articulated today: "Nor persuaded fairness trials actions. exists committed crime, not. lies offense lesser offense; numerous single count; perhaps all, capital noncapital offense—all facts. obtained.' Ciambrone, 601 616, 629 1979) (Friendly, dissenting). confirmed hindsight offense, confirmation impermissibly infect framing consequently, come." 623 added). (1984) ("Most dismissal, requiring prejudice"). Cases Solicitor General distinguishable. involved brief, interruptions came halt, 1982); (1969), "fleeting" appearance assisting movement bulky documents, (1985). panel, reasoning court, saw inconsistency Sciences, instant 136, 139-140 O'CONNOR suggests, noting ed.) rulemakers rule. 75-76. former view. section, enacted 1872, "[n]o deemed thereon imperfection only, tend indication meant disturb settled room, Edgerton, 80 374 (Mont.1897); rather, seems statute directed technical defects wording People St. Clair, Cal. (1880) (reversing word "larceny" misspelled); Vice, 344 (1864) alleging property threats force, failed allege belong defendant). 82.

Category: 0