Document: 515 U.S. 506115 S.Ct. 2310132 L.Ed.2d 444 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Michael E. GAUDIN. No. 94-514. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 17, 1995. Decided June 19, Syllabus * Respondent was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making false statements on Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan documents. After instructing jury that Government had to prove, inter alia, alleged were material HUD's activities decisions, District added issue materiality is a matter for court decide rather than in question material. The convicted respondent, but Ninth Circuit reversed, holding taking from violated Fifth Sixth Amendments. Held: trial judge's refusal submit "materiality" unconstitutional. Pp. ____. (a) Amendments require criminal convictions rest upon determination defendant guilty every element crime which he charged. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 ----, 113 2078, 2080-2081, 124 182. concedes an offense must prove under 1001. (b) whether defendant's statement federal agency's decision sort mixed law fact has typically been resolved juries. See, e.g., TSC Industries, Inc. Northway, Inc., 426 438, 450, 96 ,S.Ct. 2126, 2132-2133, 48 757. Government's position principle requiring all crime's elements applies only essential elements' factual components no support case law. Sparf States, 156 51, 90, 15 273, 288-289, 39 L.Ed. 343, other authorities relies, Sullivan, supra, U.S., at S.Ct., confirm jury's constitutional responsibility not merely determine facts, apply those facts draw ultimate conclusion guilt or innocence. (c) There consistent historical tradition argument that, even if generally pass elements, there exception determinations respect perjury prosecutions (which are analogous made prosecutions). clear practice having judge this country near time Bill Rights adopted. Indeed, state cases appear have addressed until latter part 19th century, they did display anything like virtual unanimity claimed Government. Though uniform postratification can shed light meaning ambiguous provision, here uniform, core guarantees unambiguous. (d) contention stare decisis requires respondent's claim be denied rejected. Sinclair 279 263, 298, 49 268, 73 692, overruled. Kungys 485 759, 772, 108 1537, 1547, 99 839, distinguished. 28 F.3d 943 (CA9 1994), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed concurring opinion, O'CONNOR BREYER, JJ., joined. Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, DC, petitioner. Richard A. Hansen, Seattle, WA, respondent. Justice SCALIA 1 In here, respondent within jurisdiction agency, violation presented it refuse jury. 2 1980s, engaged number real estate transactions financed loans insured Federal Administration (FHA), agency (HUD). would purchase rental housing, renovate it, obtain inflated appraisal, sell "strawbuyer" (a friend relative), whom arrange FHA-insured mortgage loan. Then, as prearranged, repurchase property (at small profit strawbuyer) assume Twenty-nine these ventures went into default. 3 indictment with, among things, multiple counts documents Two HUD/FHA form 92800-5 knowingly inflating appraised value mortgaged property. false-statement misrepresentations HUD-1, settlement used closing sales properties. Line 303 disclosure costs paid received borrower/buyer seller. forms executed showed buyer pay some costs, whereas he, seller, arranged them. To statements, offered testimony several persons administering FHA/HUD programs, who explained why requested information important. 4 At close evidence, Montana instructed convict required decisions HUD. But, further instructed, "[t]he . submitted you your court. You statements." App. 24, 29. charges. 5 A panel Appeals reversed because precedent dictated prosecution decided 997 F.2d 1267 (1993). On rehearing en banc, stood precedent. It held right guaranteed Constitution. (1994). We granted certiorari. 513 115 713, 130 621 (1995). II Section Title provides: 6 "Whoever, any department wilfully falsifies, conceals covers up trick, scheme, device fact, makes false, fictitious fraudulent representations, uses writing document knowing same contain entry, shall fined more $10,000 imprisoned five years, both." 7 uncontested conviction provision "material" inquiry, prove. parties also agree definition "materiality": "a natural tendency influence, [be] capable influencing, decisionmaking body addressed." 770, 1546, 839 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). our resolution entitled determined 8 Amendment Constitution one will deprived liberty without "due process law"; Sixth, "[i]n prosecutions, accused enjoy speedy public trial, impartial jury." provisions charged, beyond reasonable doubt.1 182 make impressive pedigree. Blackstone described "trial jury" "the truth accusation, preferred shape indictment, information, appeal, should afterwards confirmed suffrage twelve [the defendant's] equals neighbors. ." W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 343 (1769) (emphasis added). Story wrote "generally understood mean men, impartially selected, unanimously concur before legal had." J. Story, 541, n. (4th ed. 1873) deleted).2 This designed "to guard against spirit oppression tyranny rulers," "was very early times insisted ancestors parent country, great bulwark their civil political liberties." Id., 540-541. See Duncan 391 145, 151-154, 88 1444, 1448-1450, 20 491 (1968) (tracing history jury). III 9 Thus far, us seems simple. gives demand find him charged; present materiality; therefore materiality. escape force logic, offers essentially three arguments. Having conceded minor premise—that offense—the argues first, major premise flawed; second, (essentially) page worth volume simply excludes syllogism; third, judgment reversed. 10 As "materiality," logic history, "legal" question, although we sometimes spoken "requiring 'all offense,' Estelle McGuire, [502 62, 69], 112 475, 480, 116 385 (1991); see Victor Nebraska, [511 114 1239, 1242, 127 583] (1994); Patterson New York, 432 197, 210, 97 2319, 2327, 53 281 (1977), actually elements." Brief 33 claims understanding role dates back & Hansen (1895), reaffirmed recent 11 By limiting constitutionally prescribed elements" surely does concede component, test amply met here. Deciding least two subsidiary questions purely fact: "what made?"; trying make?". question: "whether decision," applying standard (quoted above) facts. What apparently jury, may judge. difficulties this. First, application-of-legal-standard-to-fact posed (c), commonly called "mixed fact," Thayer, Preliminary Treatise Evidence Common Law 194, 249-250 (1898). recognized contexts involving "delicate assessments inferences 'reasonable [decisionmaker]' given set significance [is] peculiarly on[e] trier fact." 2133, 757 (1976) (securities fraud); McLanahan Universal Ins. Co., 26 (1 Pet.) 170, 188-189, 191, 98 (1828) (materiality insurance applications). 12 second difficulty absolutely support. If true, books full cases, regarding innumerable "mixed-law-and-fact" issues, come forth "findings fact" pertaining each leaving render verdict "guilty" "not guilty." know such case. Juries framing could forced produce mere "factual findings," deliver general pronouncing Morgan, History Special Verdicts Interrogatories, 32 Yale L.J. 575, 591 (1922). G. Clementson, Findings (1905); Alschuler Deiss, Criminal Jury 61 U.Chi.L.Rev. 867, 912-913 Chase's defense charges his 1805 impeachment "he well knows juries give acquittal, cannot aside account its being contrary law, hence results power juries, cases. holds sacred privileges. S. Smith T. Lloyd, Trial Samuel Chase 34 (1805). nothing do determine, pure foregoing suggests, many thought power. 902-916. not. civil, held, permitted instruct insist follow instructions. 105-106, 294-295. But way undermined defendants innocence issue, includes application contrary, Harlan, Court, judicial assertions both expressions principle, when compounded verdict, ex necessitate, disposes hand, 288 original). He gave example 1807 treason Aaron Burr Chief Marshall " 'levying war act fact; aided [And] hav[ing] now heard case[,] [t]hey own consciences direct.' 67, (quoting Burr's 548, 550 (D. Robertson 1875)) Other abound. Battiste, 24 F.Cas. 1042, 1043 (No. 14,545) (CC Mass.1835) (Story, sitting Justice) (the "necessarily [both] fact"). Thayer end century: "From beginning perceived guilty, involved did, sense, answer law." 253. 13 modern cites concept factfinder. Although contains language discussing factfinder, (1993); County Ulster Cty. Allen, 442 140, 156, 2213, 2224, 60 777 (1979); 206, 2324-2325, (1977); re Winship, 397 358, 364, 90 1068, 1072-1073, 25 368 (1970), confirms point put unmistakable clarity constitutionality statutory presumptions. Such devices, Allen said, help 14 existence crime—that is, 'ultimate' 'elemental' —from 'evidentiary' 'basic' Nonetheless, device's validity remains constant: undermine factfinder's based evidence adduced State, doubt." 2224. 2080 ("The [to trial] includes, course, most important element, judge, reach requisite finding 'guilty' "); Patterson, 204, 2324; 361, 363, 1071, 1072. B 16 next crime, prosecutions. doubt relevant what means concepts Murray's Lessee Hoboken Land Improvement 59 (18 How.) 272, 276-277, 372 (1856); Holland Illinois, 493 474, 481, 110 803, 807-808, 107 905 (1990), precisely relied concluding elements. unique reduces important, i.e., harming another individual, offending itself—would so extraordinary convincing indeed. so. 17 courts neither old, nor suggests. England, pre-Revolution judges reached differing finally arose mid-19th century. Compare Queen Lavey, Car. K. 26, 30, 175 Eng.Rep. 448, 450 (Q.B.1850) question); Goddard, F. 1096 (1861) (same), Courtney, Ir.C.L. 434, 439 (Ct.Crim.App.1856) (dictum) judge); Gibbon, Le. Ca. 109, 113-114, 169 1324, 1326 (same). 1911, 120 years after adoption Rights, rule adopted England—not Act Parliament. Perjury 1(6) Geo. V, ch. 6). Much importantly, Power Price, Wend. (N.Y.1836), earliest reported question" "materiality jury," claiming "New York's highest correctly reserved itself." 18. case; indeed, prosecution. action Price sued slander imputing perjury. need order out prima facie raise immateriality affirmative negating intent impute Wend., 455-456. then said clearly former proved material," since "it arising proof dispute contrariety testimony," id., 456. courts' resolve mixed-law-and-fact here; juries' roles obviously identical, else directed verdicts plaintiffs. Government, Steinman McWilliams, Pa. 177-178 (1847), case, inapt reason. American able places itself opposition Cowing, 680, 681 14,880) D.C.1835), argued consideration, citing unpublished General Virginia. court, however, address issue. 19 State "virtual unanimity" Some opinions cited asserting "law" either demurrers appeals weak juror credit it—so view gone (The prosecution's failure provide minimal materiality, course raises warrants dismissal.) Shinn, 447, 452 Ore.1882); Singleton, 54 488, 489 (SD Ala.1892); Bedgood, 54, Ala.1891); Nelson Ark. 192, 195 (1877). And involve threshold arise context Cothran Miss. 547 (1860); Williams, 30 Mo. 367 Lewis, Kan. 157, 160 (1872); People Lem You, Cal. 224, 228-230, P. 11, (1893); Thompson People, Colo. 496, 504, 54-55 (1899); Barnes Ohio C.C. 14, 25-26 (1897). Even assuming, last-half-of-the-19th-century fully stand proposition view. Commonwealth Grant, Mass. (1874); Lawrence Tex.Crim. 479, 483-484 (1877); Spencer, 45 La.Ann. 1, 11-12, So. 135, 138 Young 134 Ill. 37, 42, N.E. 1070, 1071 (1890) (approving treatment thus jury"). developed division authority point, treatise writers period demonstrate. Bishop 1872 took "[p]ractically, whole subject passed instructions involving, Bishop, Procedure 935, p. (2d ed.). May's 1881 "[w]hether about equally divided." May, Crimes 188, 205. Greenleaf, 1883, sided ("It assigned jury"), 195, 189, (14th ed.)—but editions later, 1899, 196, (16th 21 sum, supporting Since (and think principle) reject embraced it. C 22 final deny petitioner's claim, 692 (1929). That controlling strictest assertion 1001, "pertinency" contempt Congress "question pertinent [a] [congressional] inquiry," Rev.Stat. 102, 192. similar, peti- tioner sought reversal court's pertinency jury: "[I]t over again, ingredient proven satisfaction Appellant O.T. 1928, 555, 109; 277 (argument appellant). explicitly, "rightly 273. tying closer dictum "is different "when perjury, court." Ibid. Thus, while strictly controlling, fair say hold today still adhering reasoning 23 already repudiated respects. rested assumption law—that depend probative evidence." contradicted Deutch 456, 81 1587, 963 (1961), reversing 192 failed carry burden proving pertinence questions." 469, 1594. introduced documentary testimonial show subcommittee's subject. Our "[i]t incongruous well-established principles leave [the] [of pertinency] 299, 274, ICC Brimson, 154 489, 1125, 1137-1138, 38 1047 (1894), Horning Columbia, 254 41 53, 65 185 (1920). Both repudiated. Brimson's attaches proceedings overruled Bloom 198-200, 1477, 1480-1481, 522 (1968). harmless error, error all, effectively convict, 138, unfortunate anomaly subsequent Quercia 289 466, 468, 472, 698, 698-700, 77 1321 (1933); Bihn 328 633, 637-639, 66 1172, 1174-1175, 1485 (1946). Sinclair, yet repudiated, repudiate now. "may likened concerning relevancy issues court," uniformly be] law" how treated purposes determining admissibility says (like "pertinence" "materiality") offense. commonplace purpose, another. probable cause conduct search, example, arises motion suppress obtained search; depriving person rights color §§ 241-242. Cf. McQueeney, 674 (CA1 1982); Barker, 546 940, 947 (CADC 1976). leaves sole prop reliance unexamined proposition, never endorsed cases) just except seen, Sinclair. While perfect circularity certain aesthetic logic. minimize plays jurisprudence. McLean Credit Union, 164, 172, 109 2363, 2370, 105 132 (1989). somewhat reduced, procedural this, serve guide lawful behavior. Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 828, 111 2597, 2609-2610, 720 (1991). reduced rests interpretation ibid. possibly when, addition factors, manifestly erroneous, underpinnings eroded, Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, 490 477, 480-481, 1917, 1919-1920, 104 526 (1989); Andrews Louisville Nashville 406 320, 92 1562, 95 (1972). 27 benefit (1988), appellate review (nonjury) denaturalization proceeding, newly asserted applied itself, remand application. 1547. observed, characterization purpose govern purposes. hard imagine diverse than, district proceeding (Kungys) and, case). heed advice, prior id. Abadi, 706 178, 180, cert. denied, 464 821, 86, 78 (1983)). result fortiori quite nonentitlement Kungys. event, assuredly adjudication attaches, Luria 231 9, 10, 58 101 (1913), reason explore ramifications today. Whatever obiter dicta, properly disregarded. 29 doubt, allow Gaudin's infringed right. ordered. 31 BREYER join, concurring. I join Court's opinion. "A first presumption innocence, established doubt. (1970)." Herrera Collins, 506 853, 859, 122 203 result, bears persuade factfinder 'beyond doubt' necessary establish 2080, (1993) (citations omitted); 502 69, (1991) ("[T]he doubt"). sustain conviction. Ante, 11. challenged Appeals' identified structural plain. 8, 5; 943, 951-952 1994). concessions, 'materiality' infringed" "right [was] charged." write separately area which, though similar disposed syllogistic neatness decide: doubt; 1001; therefore, concessions much easier might otherwise been. Whether indeed obvious text. 35 willfully 36 Currently, conflict Courts created clause Compare, Corsino, 812 1987) (" 'While explicit requirement inferred judge-made limitation exclude trifles coverage' ") Elkin, 731 1005, 1009 (CA2 1984) settled 1001"). conflict; rather, assumes ____; cf. (assuming instruction erroneous State's below"). 37 aspects construction, constitute often dispute. National Organization Women, Scheidler, 510 798, 806, (1994) (holding "RICO economic motive requirement"); Culbert, 435 371, 380, 1112, 1117, 55 349 (1978) (declining limit Hobbs Act's scope undefined category termed "racketeering"). "[I]n [legislature's] usually dispositive." McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, 85, 106 2411, 2415, 91 67 (1986). Nothing stands barrier legislatures wish define—or defined —the laws remove consideration. noted '[t]he entrusted legislature, particularly crimes, solely creatures statute.' Staples 511 1793, 1796, 128 608 Liparota 471 419, 424, 2084, 2087, 85 434 (1985)); McMillan, 2415-2416. Within broad bounds, flexibility defining (1977). reallocate burdens labeling defenses, ibid., convert "sentencing factor[s]" consideration sentencing 85-86, acknowledges remain proper domain Fed.Rule Evid. 104(a), competency witnesses, voluntariness confessions, Crane Kentucky, 476 683, 688-689, 2142, 2145-2146, 636 (1986), legality searches seizures, Crim.Proc. 12(b)(3), propriety venue, 18, Finally, 5. former, "strong presumption" harmless-error analysis. Rose Clark, 478 570, 579, 3101, 3106-3107, 460 Accordingly, analysis wide range errors harmless." Arizona Fulminante, 499 279, 306, 1246, 1263, 302 309-310, 1264-1265 (listing examples errors). particular, subjected plagued Yates Evatt, 500 391, 402, 1884, 1892, (taint unconstitutional burden-shifting analysis); Carella California, 266, 2419, 2421, 218 (1989) (per curiam ) (jury containing mandatory Pope 481 497, 502-504, 1918, 1921-1923, (1987) misstating Rose, 581-582, 3107-3108 rebuttable 2082, (erroneous analysis). occasion "cannot F.3d, 951. 40 latter, Olano, 507 1770, 1775-1776, 123 (1993), limitations "plain error" Rule 52(b). "The 52(b) 'error.' 1777. Second, [must] 'plain.' "[a]t minimum, correct pursuant unless current Third, plain 'affect[ ] substantial rights,' "in prejudicial," prerequisites met, forfeited sound discretion Appeals. Appeals, exercise ' "seriously affect[s] fairness, integrity reputation proceedings." 1776. affirming concludes [Sinclair (1929) ]." Before today, considered Circuit, 955 (Kozinski, dissenting) (collecting cases). certainly "clear constituted error." 952. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. "beyond doubt" directly unclear Circuit's noting, regard higher proof. Gribben, 984 47, 51 1993); Chandler, 752 1148, 1151 (CA6 1985). Williams Florida, 399 78, 1893, 446 12-person referred indispensable component doing emphasized indispensable. "essential feature interposition between accuser commonsense judgement group laymen [in] group's innocence." 100, 1905. Apodaca Oregon, 404, 1628, 184 (1972) (plurality opinion) (applying conclude required).

Category: 0