Document: 350 U.S. 377 76 S.Ct. 425 100 L.Ed. 435 Elmer F. REMMER, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 156. Argued Jan. 18, 1956. Decided March 5, Mr. Leslie C. Gillen, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. John R. Benney, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case is here third time. Petitioner was convicted on four counts wilfully attempting to evade and defeat federal income taxes. When this first we knew nothing about facts concerning phase now before us. It alleged in petitioner's motion affidavits supporting his a new trial that during one juror, Smith, had been approached by Satterly, an outsider, with suggestion juror could make some easy money if he would deal petitioner Remmer. further reported matter judge, who turn it district attorney, who, judge's approval, called Federal Bureau Investigation—all which unknown until read newspaper after jury returned its verdict finding him guilty. The Government did not deny these allegations. We sent back District Court directions hold hearing, counsel present, determine from whether or communication outsider events followed were prejudicial and, therefore, harmful petitioner, so, grant trial. 347 227, 74 450, 98 654. On remand, held hearing found incidents be free harm. 122 F.Supp. 673. Thereafter, remanded entire record Appeals Ninth Circuit consider whole light our recent net-worth decisions. 348 904, 75 288, 99 710. reviewed affirmed conviction per curiam opinion. 222 F.2d 720. 2 again certiorari, limited question effect extraneous communications upon right fair 820, 63. mandate mean "the incident complained of" (122 675) inquired into at purpose F.B.I. investigation. investigation examine Smith's conduct, but rather Satterly committed offense. court agent's discussion Smith 'no whatever judgment, integrity state mind' whom 'forthright honest man.' basis two findings, concluded: 3 'Consequently, finds 'the of' entirely harmless so far as concerned have slightest bearing nor mind foreman jury, any members jury. Thus presumption prejudice conclusively dispelled. * *' 4 Court's limit mandate, seems us, hardly warranted language opinion, even though might well more explicit. intention picture should explored examined included Satterly's impact thereof then, immediately thereafter, trial, taken together fact investigating circumstance involving never all balance what outcome was. stated: 'In criminal case, private communication, contact, tampering directly indirectly, pending is, obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, made pursuance known rules full knowledge parties.' U.S., page 229, 451. also pointed out us reflect transpired, 'or may occurred harmless.' Ibid. paucity information relating situation coupled attaches kind which, view, manifest need hearing. Nevertheless, there sufficient evidence total situation, including both contacts, makes unnecessary remand consideration. will think are unduly narrow limits viewed 5 shows three weeks started, real estate insurance broker, visited home wife policy. employed gambling house Nevada dealer craps. engaged operation houses Nevada. Satterlys met Smiths socially hunting lodge. seated themselves end large room their wives other room, convenient arrangement approach made. substantially following remark: 'I know Bones Remmer very well. He sold Cal-Neva $850,000 really got $300,000 under table daresn't touch. Why don't you him?' vigorously reminded talk case. Nothing said. disturbed. As later testified, always felt, said many words not, I felt involved; otherwise why put me.' So disturbed told judge it. reaction, least manifested conversation regarded joke. But related attorney they decided refer Investigation. Shortly recess, agent place business. testified explained visit follows: 'He me instructed come interview relative Satterly. To check see anything not.' direct examination testified: requested conduct possibility improper approach.' In reply questions Court, conduct. interviewed month ended determined prosecution unwarranted. 6 Driving jurors, mentioned judge. thanked jurors dropping her home, 'because terrific pressure *. Sometime discuss it.' 7 evidence, covering picture, reveals such neither anyone else say affected freedom action juror. From testimony quite evident troubled man date contact Proper concern protecting preserving system dictates against speculating understood be, dispersed cloud created communication. sat remainder long cast ballot, aware Government's interpretation he, however unwillingly, become party. subjected influences no subjected, law's objective guard jealously sanctity jury's operate freely possible outside unauthorized intrusions purposefully 8 restrictive diluting force circumstances influenced untrammeled exercise judgment consideration uninfluenced construction of, entitled 9 Appeals' vacated ordered. 10 11 Chief WARREN HARLAN took part decision

Category: 0