Opinion ID: 6111839
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Neder’s Harmlessness Standard

Text: We must first address Saini’s argument about the harmlessness standard under Neder. Neder stated that an error is harmless “where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). Focusing on the word “uncontested,” Saini claims that this statement in Neder means that the omission of an element can be harmless only when the defendant made no attempt to dispute the element. 6 In other words, Saini’s position is that “uncontested” should be given its literal meaning. We note at the outset that this position makes little logical sense, as whether an error causes harm would not likely turn on whether the defendant protested or interposed an objection. It would turn on the state of the actual evidence. Saini also cites no Ninth Circuit precedent adopting this literal interpretation, and we have found none. Although we have not squarely addressed the issue, Ninth Circuit cases indicate that we do not apply “uncontested” literally, and we so hold here. For example, in United States v. Gracidas- 6 Although Saini abandoned this claim during oral argument, Oral Arg. at 4:02 4:23, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?2021111 6/19-50196/, we nonetheless address the arguments in his brief. 16 UNITED STATES V. SAINI Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000), the defendant contested the omitted element by arguing (but without admitting any supporting evidence) that he lacked the required specific intent because “he was asleep when the car was driven to the port of entry.” Id. at 1197. Even though the defendant technically contested the element, we found the error harmless. Id. at 1197–98. Similarly, in United States v. Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), we held that the instructional error was harmless even though the defendant contested the omitted element by arguing and pointing to evidence that he did not believe the victim was under sixteen. Id. at 1156. 7 And other circuits have declined to read “uncontested” literally. The Eleventh Circuit did so when it applied Neder on remand from the Supreme Court in United States v. Neder, 197 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 1999) (Neder II), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 (2000). In rejecting a literal interpretation, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned: Neder claims the Supreme Court held that the failure to instruct on materiality can never be harmless error unless the Government shows both that Neder never contested materiality and that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the materiality of every charged falsehood. However, the Supreme Court did not hold that omission of an element can 7 Cherer also directly undermines Saini’s argument that the harmless error analysis requires us to believe his evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Cherer, 513 F.3d at 1155–56. Given this, and because Saini cites no authority supporting his argument that “uncontested” should be given its literal meaning, we reject Saini’s argument that we must accept his evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor in conducting our harmless error review. UNITED STATES V. SAINI 17 never be harmless error unless uncontested. Indeed, the Supreme Court emphasized that the correct focus of harmless-error analysis is: “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?” Stated another way, the focus is whether “the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error” or “whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to [materiality].” Thus, whether Neder contested materiality may be considered but is not the pivotal concern. Instead, what the evidence showed regarding materiality is the touchstone. Id. at 1129 (alteration in original) (citations and footnote omitted); see also id. at 1129 n.6 (“Considered in context, the Supreme Court’s statement clearly does not mean that omission of an element of an offense can never be harmless error unless uncontested. The statement means only that the fact materiality was not contested supports the conclusion that the jury’s verdict would have been the same absent the error.”). The Third Circuit also recently rejected a literal interpretation, though with less analysis: The Supreme Court has upheld convictions on harmless error review, for example, where “the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence.” We do not read “uncontested” literally to restrict harmless error to cases where the defendant 18 UNITED STATES V. SAINI made no attempt whatsoever to dispute the element, but rather more generally to mean the missing piece “is supported by uncontroverted evidence.” United States v. Boyd, 999 F.3d 171, 179 (3d Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We find these parts of Neder II and Boyd persuasive. They also align with our precedent issued after Neder, in which we found harmless error even though the defendants had technically contested the improperly omitted elements. See Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188; Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150. Thus, whether Saini contested the omitted element is not determinative. Our harmless error inquiry instead focuses on what the evidence showed regarding Saini’s intent to defraud and whether we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt “that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Neder, 527 U.S. at 17.