Document: 422 U.S. 35 95 S.Ct. 2091. 45 L.Ed.2d 1 George Herman ROGERS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 73—6336. Argued April 14, 1975. Decided June 17, Syllabus Two hours after retiring for deliberation in petitioner's trial having allegedly violated 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) by threatening the life of President, jury note asked judge whether he would accept a verdict 'Guilty as charged with extreme mercy Court.' The through marshal answered affirmatively without notifying petitioner or his counsel. Five minutes later returned guilty indicated recommendation, which was upheld on appeal. Held: '(T)he orderly conduct jury, essential to proper protection right be heard, entitles parties . present person counsel at all proceedings from time is impaneled until it discharged rendering verdict,' Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 76, 81, 39 435, 436, 63 L.Ed. 853, and, Shields United States, 273 583, 47 478, 71 787, and Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 43 make clear, criminal defendant has 'at every stage including impaneling return verdict.' Although violation Rule may some circumstances harmless error, that conclusion cannot reached this case. At very least, court should have reminded its recommendation not any way binding admonished reach regard what sentence might imposed. In case, court's errors were such warrant Court's taking cognizance them regardless failure raise issue Court Appeals Court. Pp. 38-41. 488 F.2d 512, reversed remanded. Ralph W. Parnell, Jr., Shreveport, La., petitioner. Allan A. Tuttle, Raleigh, N.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Petitioner convicted five counts an indictment charging him knowingly willfully making oral threats 'to take inflict bodily harm upon President States,' 871(a). affirmed, 512 (CA5 1974), we granted certiorari resolve apparent conflict among Courts concerning elements offense proscribed 419 824, 40, 42 48 (1974). After full briefing argument, however, find unnecessary question, since certain satisfy us conviction must reversed. 2 record reveals retired 3 p.m. second day trial. Approximately two later, 4:55 p.m., sent note, signed foreman, judge, inquiring 'accept Verdict—'Guilty Court'.' Without counsel, instructed who advise answer affirmative.' 5 returned, contains following account acceptance verdict: 'THE COURT: We understand you finds but wish recommend mercy; correct? 4 FOREMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Will please poll jury. (Whereupon polled jurors affirmative.) 6 Let entered judgment Certainly will into consideration your mercy, before can act Probation Officer pre-sentence investigation report. do know man prior certainly recommended.' Tr. 192—193.1 7 Generally, leniency made statutory authorization does affect validity disregarded sentencing judge. See Cook 379 966, 970 1967), cases cited. However Cook, held exception general rule, requiring further inquiry court, arises where cast doubt unqualified nature verdict. Assuming exception, need decide either factual differences between instant request recording verdict, see 31(d), suffice distinguish purposes appropriate appellate relief. 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice 31.07 (2d ed. 1975). deal here merely potential defect 853 (1919), observed 'that attend purpose Id., S.Ct., 436. applying principle, civil case had 'erred giving supplementary instruction absence affording opportunity timely objection instruction.' Ibid. 9 787 (1927), occasion consider implications 'orderly jury' replied written communication indicating inability agree guilt innocence defendant, sending direction 'guilty guilty.' communications open while nor they advised them. thereupon found one count mercy. This previous Government hold agreed 'did justify rule entitling especially discharge 588—589, 479. 10 As Shields, tantamount instructions. However, look solely our decisions guidance procedure situation. guarantees Cases interpreting if promulgation left doubt, jury's message been given heard responded. See, e.g., States Schor, 418 26, 29—30 (CA2 1969); Glick, 463 491, 493 1972). 11 52(a); supra, information conveyed addition manner conveyed, permit confined response indication willingness 'extreme mercy.' way. But Davidson, 367 60 (CA6 1966).2 addition, included admonition no function Louie Gim Hall, 245 38 1957); 494. Cf. Patrick, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 494 1150 12 fact deliberating almost reaching mercy' within 'after being told unconditionally unequivocally could leniency,' 495, strongly suggests judge's induced unanimity members previously hesitated about impression acceptable compromise. acknowledge comments receiving said put notice communicated only unilaterally comes itself, correctly ordered filed record, notation receipt response. It appears, aware petition certiorari. circumstances, particularly light difficult task factfinder prosecution under 871(a), Watts 394 705, 89 1399, 22 664 (1969), conclude combined effect District so fraught prejudice require notwithstanding Silber 370 717, 82 1287, 798 (1962); Brotherhood Carpenters 330 395, 411—412, 67 775, 784, 91 973 (1947). 63. 13 accordingly reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 14 Reversed 15 MARSHALL, whom DOUGLAS joins, concurring. 16 Rogers, 34-year-old unemployed carpenter 10-year history alcoholism, wandered coffee shop Holiday Inn shreveport, early morning, behaving loud obstreperous manner. He accosted several customers waitresses, telling them, other things, Jesus Christ opposed Nixon's visiting China because Chinese bomb knew about, used against people country. course various outbursts, Rogers announced going go Washington 'whip ass,' 'kill order save States.' 17 local police soon called remove Inn. When arresting officer arrived, threatened President. didn't like idea President's friends Chinese, enemies. officer, 'I'm I'm beat ass off. Better yet, I kill him.' added intended 'walk' cars. state-law crimes, reported incident Secret Service agent, subsequently arrested federal warrant. sad set resulted five-count 'threats President' statute, trial, statute sentenced years' imprisonment, followed years supervised probation. Fifth Circuit affirmed brief per curiam opinion, holding properly 871, evidence sufficient sustain construed. 19 certiorari, here, Solicitor General confessed point raised Appeals, today seizes reverse conviction, leaving unresolved consider. disagree treatment question bases reversal today, merits grounds pressed 20 * adopted termed 'objective' construction statute. interpretation 871 originated Ragansky 253 F. 643 (CA7 1918), majority Appeals,1 even though expressed 'grave doubts' correctness. 707, 1401, (1969). applied cases, support anyone statement reasonably understood threat, Roy 416 874, 877 (CA9 1969), long meaning words used, F.2d, 645. 21 accordance 'objective construction.' required actually injure thought taken serious threat. Instead, permitted convict showing reasonable place foreseen statements intention commit act.2 evinced 'an determination carry out threat.' 171. my view, too broad. Watts, expansive create substantial risk crude, constitutionally protected, speech criminalized. there small group political rally: 'If me rifle first want get sights L.B.J.' statement, 'willfully knowingly' made, true 'threat' form hyperbole. Applying eye danger encroaching protected speech, comment fell outside matter law. rally engaged formal discussion, same concern counsels permitting broad crude careless expression enmity. II 23 Both legislative are inconsistent suggest narrower view proper. 24 enacted 1917 extensive discussion. Only House debates hint scope sponsors Act. suggested word 'willfully' removed bill, Representative Volstead objected, stating '(t)he adds threaten, distinguishes (in intend convey threat).' requirement willfulness, said, 'a send innocently, threat all, instrument friend contained ..' 53 Cong.Rec. 9378 (1916). Arguing—successfully, turned out—that Congressman emphasized importance subjective threaten: 25 '(I)f saved seems theory willful. There anything language intentional 'willful' conveys, ordinarily wrongful well intentional. That ought preserved innocent acts punishable.' 9379. 26 Webb, floor, also specific intent. read least restrictively did Volstead: 27 mere technical offense, give much chance when think anxious thing thoughtlessly. willful intent Executive 9378.3 28 thus rather plainly bill appreciated one. 'technical offense' 'innocent punishable' clear Act; their concerns continue inform application today. B 29 argues objective serve. watts, notes, identified interests advanced both 'protecting safety (the) allowing perform duties interference physical violence.' U.S., 1401. adhere statute; simply necessary natural means achieving purpose. 30 Plainly, costly dangerous society variety ways, authors whatever carrying out. Like blow up building, enormously disruptive involves costs Government. A still restrict movements reaction those protecting Because prevent attempts life, associated believe construed proscribe speaker intends interpreted expressions requires proof nature. Under contrast, subject speaker's intention. essence, embodies negligence standard, responsibility listeners. reluctant infer standard statutes, Morissette 342 246, 72 240, 96 288 (1952); wary adopting regulates pure speech. Abrams 616, 626—627, 40 20—21, 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). 31 If deterrent effect, likely work Statements deemed deterred persons criticizing careful wide berth And degree deterrence discouraging 'uninhibited, robust, wide-open' debate First Amendment protect. New York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 270, 84 710, 720, 686 (1964). 32 therefore interpret would, course, turn made: call White attempt hour, example, caller punishment calling Los Angeles neither more than prudent expect hearers seriously impose unduly stringent sensitive area. 33 acquitted, concluding unlikely expected listeners misconstruction prejudiced mischief future prosecutions brought ground General's confession error. originally imprisonment each count, parole eligibility provisions 4208(a)(2), probation condition join Alcoholics Anonymous. last four run concurrently suspended during good behavior. 60, 1966). appears Judge sought use confinement afford cured alcoholism. suggestion moved for, oppose, reduction sentences imposed Court' 35. motion granted, reduced three count. released December 24, 1974. remains argument 7, 1975, mandatory release (18 4164) incarcerated pending revocation hearing. 63, charge 'punishment exclusively province considered arriving impartial 190. Lincoln, 462 1368 (CA6), cert. denied, 409 952, 93 298, 34 224 (1972); Hart, 457 1087 (CA10), 861, 150, 108 Compton, 428 1970), 401 1014, 1259, 551 (1971); 874 131 125, 402 676 (1968), rev'd grounds, Contra: Patillo, 438 (CA4 1971) (en banc). drew definitions 'knowingly,' supplemented definition directly supra. Webb began remarks commenting, 'I injury President.' Cong.Rec., 9378. His subsequent somewhat unclear meant accompanied so. event, clearly character.

Category: 0