Document: 347 U.S. 227 74 S.Ct. 450 98 L.Ed. 654 REMMERv.UNITED STATES. No. 304. Argued Feb. 1, 2, 1954. Decided March 8, Mr. J. Louis Monarch, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Philip Elman, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was convicted by a jury on several counts charging willful evasion payment federal income taxes. A matter admitted Government to have been handled trial court in manner that may prejudicial petitioner, and therefore confessed as error, is presented at threshold must be disposed first. 2 After had returned its verdict, learned first time during person unnamed communicated with certain juror, who afterwards became foreman, remarked him he could profit bringing verdict favorable juror reported incident judge, informed prosecuting attorneys advised them. As result, Federal Bureau Investigation requested make an investigation report, which accordingly done. F.B.I. report considered judge prosecutors alone, they apparently concluded statement made jest, nothing further done or said about matter. Neither nor incident, his counsel reading it newspapers after verdict. 3 above-stated facts were alleged motion new trial, together allegation substantially prejudiced, thereby depriving fair request hearing determine circumstances surrounding effect jury.* supporting affidavit petitioner's recited occurrences stated if known would moved mistrial question replaced alternate juror. Two newspaper articles reporting attached affidavit. did not file answering affidavits. District Court, without holding hearing, denied trial. Court Appeals held abused discretion, since shown no prejudice him. 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 277, 291. case here writ certiorari. 346 884, 144. 4 In criminal case, any private communication, contact, tampering directly indirectly, pending before is, obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, pursuance rules instructions directions full knowledge parties. presumption conclusive, but burden rests heavily upon establish, notice defendant, such contact harmless defendant. Mattox v. United States, 146 140, 148—150, 13 50, 52—53, 36 917; Wheaton 8 133 522, 527. 5 We do know from this record, does know, what actually transpired, whether incidents occurred harmful harmless. sending agent midst investigate conduct bound impress very apt so unduly. feel free exercise functions anyone else looking over shoulder. integrity proceedings jeopardized unauthorized invasions. should decide take final action ex parte information received circumstances, impact thereof all interested parties permitted participate. 6 vacate judgment remand hold complained found harmful, grant 7 Judgment vacated. CHIEF JUSTICE took part consideration decision case. * also grounded many other contentions, Because our disposition issue treated herein, we pass these additional questions.

Category: 0