Document: 502 U.S. 46 112 S.Ct. 466 116 L.Ed.2d 371 Diane GRIFFIN, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 90-6352. Argued Oct. 7, 1991. Decided Dec. 3, Syllabus Petitioner Griffin and others were charged in a multiple-object conspiracy. The evidence introduced at trial implicated the first object of conspiracy but not second. District Court nevertheless instructed jury manner that would permit it to return verdict against if found her have participated either one two objects. returned general guilty. Appeals upheld Griffin's conviction, rejecting argument could stand because left doubt whether had convicted as or second object. Held: Neither Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment nor this Court's precedents require, federal prosecution, guilty on be set aside is inadequate support conviction Pp. 49-60. (a) historical practice fails due process claim, since rule criminal procedure applied by was settled feature common law. 49-51. (b) precedent governing case Yates v. United States, 354 298, 77 1064, 1 1356, which invalidated when possible bases legally inadequate, Turner 396 398, 420, 90 642, 654, 24 610, supported evidence. line between makes good sense: jurors are generally equipped determine particular theory contrary law, well facts. Although preferable give an instruction removing from jury's consideration alternative basis liability does adequate evidentiary support, refusal do so provide independent for reversing otherwise valid conviction. 51-60. 913 F.2d 337 (CA7 1990), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed concurring judgment. THOMAS, took no part decision case. Michael G. Logan, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice SCALIA Court. This presents question whether, charge must 2 * A grand 23-count indictment petitioner others. Count 20, only count named, her, Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty with conspiring defraud agency Federal Government violation 18 U.S.C. § 371, reads, pertinent part, follows: 3 "If more persons conspire commit any offense thereof purpose, such act effect conspiracy, each shall [guilty crime]." 4 unlawful alleged objects: (1) impairing efforts Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ascertain income taxes; (2) Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) forfeitable assets. 5 Beverly both conspiratorial objects, IRS However, testimony anticipated its witnesses did materialize, connect DEA On basis, moved severance, motion denied. At close trial, she proposed instructions aware She also special interrogatories asking identify objects knowledge. Both requests court 20 McNulty, 6 Seventh Circuit petitioner's IRS, there sufficient proof, DEA, (as concedes) not. States 1990). We granted certiorari, 498 ----, 111 766, 786 (1991). 7 presented review, forth petition, simply under circumstances existed here "is reversible." body however, sets Jury Trial provision Sixth relief requested. Only former has been discussed (and briefly) written oral before us. For reason, defect determination denied rather permitted, we find unnecessary say anything about Amendment. address below Clause, various relied upon II 8 innovation. It law England Declaration Independence, country long afterwards, supportable submitted grounds—even though gave assurance ground, than invalid one, actually action. As Wharton wrote 1889: 9 "For years prevailing country, where containing several counts, some bad good, pass judgment counts presumption them attached, withdrawal prosecution counts. . [I]n few exceptions, courts united sustaining judgments stating cognate offences, irrespective these bad." F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading Practice 771, pp. 533-536 (9th ed. 1889) (footnotes omitted). And observed: 10 "In cases, rule, stated Lord Mansfield 'that verdict, notwithstanding all rest bad.' court, generally, information cannot reversed error, warrants judgment, because, absence record show contrary, awarded sentence only." Claassen 142 140, 146 [12 169, 170, 35 L.Ed. 966] (1891) (quoting Peake Oldham, Cowper 275, 276, 98 Eng.Rep. 1083 (K.B.1775)) (other citations 11 See Snyder 216, 217, 118, 119, 28 697 (1884); Clifton How. 242, 250, 957 (1846); J. Bishop Procedure 1015, p. 631 (2d 1872). 12 common-law variety contexts. validated verdicts multicount indictments defective ("bad"), see, e.g., Clifton, supra, 250; State Shelledy, Iowa 477, 511 (1859); Burke, 38 Me. 574, 575-576 (1854); Commonwealth Holmes, 17 Mass. *336, *337 (1821), unsupported evidence, Long, 52 N.C. 24, 26 Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32, (1849); Bishop, 1014, 630. analogous situation issue here: single charging commission means. example, reviewing defendants composing, printing, publishing libel, Ellenborough stated: 13 "It enough prove publication. If charges defendant caused done act, either. distinction runs through whole invariably much shows committed substantive crime therein specified." King Hunt, Camp. 583, 584-585, 170 1260 (N.P. 1811). 14 latter application made regular prosecutors conjunctively, count, means committing statutory offense, order avoid pitfalls duplicitous pleading. 15 "A statute often punishable doing thing another, sometimes thus specifying considerable number things. Then, proper ordinary construction, person who transaction all, violates once, incurs penalty. Yet he equally Therefore may allege, many forbidden things pleader chooses, employing conjunction "or," will double, established proof them." New 436, 355-356 1913) 16 See, Crain 162 625, 636, 952, 955, 40 1097 (1896); Sanford State, Ala App. 245, 247, 62 So. 317, 318 (1913); Bresee, 137 673, 681, 114 N.W. 45, 48 (1907); Morganstern Commonwealth, 94 Va. 787, 790, S.E. 402, 403 (1896). Schad Arizona, 501 ---- - 2491, 2496-2497, 115 555 (1991); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 7(c)(1) (authorizing allege "by specified means"). practice, therefore, claim Constitution. Murray's Lessee Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 272, 276-277, 372 (1856). argues, that—whether matter virtue our supervisory power over courts—a result earlier prescribed 1356 (1957). involved single-count "(1) advocate teach duty necessity overthrowing force violence, organize, Communist Party society teach." Id., 300, S.Ct., 1067. (the "advocacy" charge) violated 2(a)(1) Smith Act 1940, "organizing" 2(a)(3). 2385. insufficient term referred initial formation, "organized" sense time beyond period applicable limitations. 304-311, 1069-1073. then rejected Government's convictions nonetheless Our analysis mention consisted entirety following: think requires cases impossible tell ground selected. Stromberg California, 283 359, 367-368 [51 532, 535, 75 1117]; Williams North Carolina, 317 287, 291-292 [63 207, 209-210, 87 279]; Cramer 325 1, 36 n. 45 [65 918, 935 89 1441]." 19 None three authorities cited expansive proposition fact establishes it. them, 51 1117 (1931), fountainhead decisions departing respect point here. That case, however—which explicitly invoke Clause—does sanction broad departure dictum expresses, indeed even somewhat narrower holding adopts. violating California prohibiting display red flag public place purposes: symbol opposition organized government; invitation anarchistic action; (c) aid seditious propaganda. 361, 533. convict purpose statute. 363-364, 533-534. form followed. appellate that, doubted constitutionality criminalizing purposes, conviction) saved severed that: "As purposes statute, their might given independently considered, clause obtained. clauses, state held separable, invalid, determined appellant clause. follows instead being permissible hold, sustained clauses valid, necessary conclusion sent Constitution, upheld." 368, 535. 21 language, Stromberg, necessarily principle Constitution forbids constitutional guarantee rested ground. same explains other Yates. In 63 279 (1942), bigamous cohabitation after disregard defendants' Nevada divorce decrees Carolina recognize based substituted service procured fraud. 290-291, 209-210. grounds, found, Full Faith Credit Clause. continued: 23 "[T]he know rendered [unconstitutional] alone, specify rested. No reason suggested why inapplicable Nor advanced appropriate protection rights accused. To should jury, countenance cause serious impairment rights." 292, 210. third Yates, 65 1441 (1945), opportunity interpret Article III, requires, treason "two Witnesses overt Act." acts After comprehensive overt-act requirement, id., 8-35, 922-935, proffered satisfy it, 36-44, 935-939, accordingly "Since possible," said, "to grounds convicted, separable insufficient." 45.1 25 host decisions, what called "the case" general-verdict unconstitutional Bachellar Maryland, 397 564, 570-571, 1312, 1315-1316, 570 (1970); Leary 395 6, 31-32, 1532, 1545-1546, 57 (1969); Street York, 394 576, 585-588, 1354, 1362-1364, 572 Terminiello 5, 69 894, 896, 93 1131 (1949); Thomas Collins, 323 516, 529, 315, 322, 430 (1945). Cf. Zant Stephens, 462 862, 880-884, 103 2733, 2744-2747, 235 (1983) (rejecting contention required death aggravating underlying unconstitutionally vague). ours apply violate (because bar). described, unexplained extension, invoking neither (which unlikely basis) powers procedures employed prosecution. continued adherence What seeks extension holding—an expansion Stromberg—to context never before. cites none, illegal merely invalidation appropriate, hard see how limited those constitute separate legal grounds; surely equally, murder shooting drowning, drowning proves inadequate. U.S., 2496-2497). But requested unprecedented extreme; contradicts another postdating view govern 27 610 (1970), one-count knowingly purchasing, possessing, dispensing, distributing heroin original stamped package, 4704(a) (1964 ed.). distribution alone. rule: "when returns conjunctive, Turner's did, stands charged." 654. Miller, 471 130, 136, 105 1811, 1815, 85 99 (1985). ask us overrule Turner, distinguishing claims yet multiple-act conspiracies. questionable. Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 150, 60 811, 856, 84 1129 (1940). not, controlling logical consistent demands facts treated Imagine defrauding insurer means; imagine failure Petitioner's proposal produce strange voiding while offense. agree vast majority appeals, exception multiple-overt Bilzerian, 926 1285, 1302 (CA2 1991), appeal pending, 90-1223; 337, 362-365 1990) (case below); Johnson, 713 633, 645-646, (CA11 1983), cert. sub nom. Wilkins 465 1081, 104 1447, 79 766 (1984); Wedelstedt, 589 339, 341-342 (CA8 1978), denied, 442 916, 2836, 61 (1979); James, 528 999, 1014 (CA5), Austin 429 959, 97 383, 50 326 (1976); Moss 132 875, 877-878 (CA6 1943).2 29 distinguish applies can sure use inadequately exists, claims, whatever theory; offers some, insufficient, point, "impossible tell" rationale controls. novel posits different degrees proof—a sufficiently apply, insufficiently apply. Besides producing odd system greater rewarded, seems full practical difficulty, bereft without foundation commonlaw based. 30 Finally, asserts error (Yates ) insufficiency (Turner illusory, requisite minimum law—and indeed, field least, constitutionally aside. Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 319, 2781, 2789, 560 (1979). Insufficiency words, error. represents purely semantical dispute. "legal error" includes inadequacy evidence—namely, phrase used art designate mistakes business judges (in cases) correct. occurs properly convicts reasonable regard sufficient. sense—a natural less artful sense—the mistake opposed concerning weight factual import answer objection using sense. 31 clear happens Jurors law—whether, action protected barred, come within definition crime. When, option relying theory, own intelligence expertise save Quite opposite true, they factually analyze Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 157, 88 1444, 1451, 491 (1968). put it: 32 negate erroneous law; chance—remote, us—that sufficient." Townsend, 924 1385, 1414 33 34 said today mean district cannot, discretion, sort here, eliminating support. Indeed, liability, consideration. so, appeals ordered. THOMAS 37 I out although follow self-guided tour ante, 49-52. enough, think, observe whatsoever. 39 further (1957), require reversal distinguished (1970). 56-59. emphasize strongly danger confusion inherent multiple-defendant, resulting 5- 6-week trial. rightly observes "it preferable" remove theories 60. note avoiding possibility, however remote, evidence: objectives agreed request interrogatories. wisely rejects, albeit silently, practices, complex voluminous likely confused jury. go commend techniques prosecutions. outset discussion acts, said: "At present stage need weigh sufficiency Whatever averments permitted prove, now consider adequacy made." 37, 936. suggests sufficiency-of-the-evidence case—a relevant later analysis, infra, 58-59. suggestion mistaken. apparent discussion, "adequacy made" meant sufficed enable adduced treason. Thus say: appraise credibility apart determining sufficiency." 43, 939. Appeals' clearer issue; specifically distinguishes multiple suffices them. Cramer, 888, 893-894 1943). adheres Third Circuit, distinguishing, acknowledging existence of, Turner. Tarnopol, 561 466, 474-475 (CA3 1977). Many petitioner, invalidate deficiency proof; course irrelevant. Irwin, 654 671, 680 (CA10 1981), 455 1016, 102 1709, 72 133 (1982); Head, 641 174, 178-179 (CA4 1132, 3113, 1367 (1983); Kavazanjian, 623 730, 739-740 (CA1 1980); Carman, 577 556, 567-568 (CA9 1978); Baranski, 484 560-561 1973); Van Liew 321 664, 672 (CA5 1963). Some involve Natelli, 527 311, 324-325 1975), 425 934, 96 1663, 175 (1976), ruling charges, Garcia, 907 380, 381 1990)—which flatly contradict offer suggests. Still (or effectively overruled) circuit, Berardi, 675 902 1982).

Category: 3