Opinion ID: 3013689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: required under this

Text: subchapter shall be fined not In United States v. Gaudin, 515 more than $10,000 or U.S. 506 (1995), the Supreme Court of the imprisoned for not more United States held that “materiality” is an than one year, or both. element of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (“makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 29 U.S.C. § 439(b) (emphasis added). As is true respecting 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the statutory text of 29 3 U.S.C. § 439(b) expressly requires that the McLaughlin has completed his fact allegedly withheld be “material.” service of the period of incarceration, Compare Johnson, 520 U.S. at 465 (“The and is currently serving his period of statutory text expressly requires that the supervised release. 4 false declaration be ‘material.’ Gaudin terms, applies to all errors where a proper therefore dictates that materiality be objection is made at trial, the Supreme decided by the jury, not the court.”), with Court has recognized a limited class of United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 489- fundamental constitutional errors that 91 (1997) (holding that “materiality” is not “defy analysis by ‘harmless error’ element of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, a statute that standards.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 does not contain materiality requirement in U.S. 279, 309 (1991). Errors of that type text). In other words, the logic of Gaudin are so intrinsically harmful as to require and Johnson compels a finding that automatic reversal without regard to their materiality is an element of 29 U.S.C. § effect on the outcome. For all other 439(b). See United States v. W. Indies constitutional errors, the Supreme Court Transp., Inc., 127 F.3d 299, 305 (3d Cir. teaches that reviewing courts must apply 1997) (“Failure to submit the issue of Rule 52(a)’s harmless-error analysis and materiality to the jury was error. . . . That must disregard errors that are harmless Gaudin involved perjury under 18 U.S.C. “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. § 1001 rather than 18 U.S.C. § 1546, the California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). relevant statute here, is not significant given the identical character of the In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. materiality element in both perjury 1 (1999), the Court, relying on Gaudin, statutes.”) (emphasis added). held that materiality is an element of the federal tax fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, In sum, “materiality” is an element and bank fraud statutes under which the of both 29 U.S.C. § 439(b) and 18 U.S.C. appellant had been convicted. Thus, the § 1623. Thus, the District Court’s decision Court held that the district court’s jury to resolve the issue as a matter of law, instructions, which had resolved as a rather than submitting it to the jury as a matter of law the materiality elements of question of fact, violated McLaughlin’s those charges, were in error. rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The instructions, therefore, Although the defendant there (as were in error. here) had lodged a timely objection to the erroneous instruc tions re gard ing