Legal Document

483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 2739 97 L.Ed.2d 90 Anthony R. TANNER and William M. Conover, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 86-177. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided June 22, Syllabus Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Seminole), obtained a bank loan for power plant construction project which included an access road. The was guaranteed by the federal Rural Electrification Administration (REA) had right to supervise project, approve certain contracts including road agreement, require bidding procedures be used. Petitioner Seminole's procurement manager, petitioner Tanner were friends engaged in several business deals together. At about time of fill materials awarded Tanner's company upon favorable specifications prepared Conover's department, paid Conover over $30,000, allegedly as payments on their personal transactions. Thereafter, helped resolve problems between terms Tanner, and, after REA complained that bond not from approved company, sent letters new bonding misrepresented road's state completion. On these facts, petitioners indicted convicted conspiring defraud United States violation 18 U.S.C. § 371, committing mail fraud 1341. Before they sentenced, filed motion seeking permission interview jurors, evidentiary hearing, trial based juror's statement jurors consumed alcohol at lunch throughout trial, causing them sleep during afternoons. District Court concluded juror testimony intoxication inadmissible under Federal Rule Evidence 606(b) impeach jury's verdict, but invited call nonjuror witnesses support motion. only such evidence introduced defense counsel's he observed one "in sort giggly mood" did bring this anyone's attention time. judge pointed out that, although discussed with counsel possibility falling asleep, neither nor courtroom employees thereafter alerted him problem, none himself. Thus, denied subsequently similar another affidavit alleged widespread use drugs admitted whom affiant drank intoxicated his own reasoning ability affected Appeals affirmed petitioners' convictions, holding actions constituted conspiracy sufficient establish 1341 violation. court reach question whether established mails purpose defrauding Seminole. Held: 1. err refusing hold hearing would testify drug trial. Pp. 116-127. (a) Such is barred 606(b), embodies long-accepted common-law rule subject, prohibits impeachment verdict "as . effect anything or any mind emotions ., except [such admissible question] outside influence improperly brought bear juror." This supported substantial policy considerations, need assure full frank discussion privacy jury room, prevent harassment losing parties, preserve community's trust system relies decisions laypeople. Petitioners' argument substance abuse constitutes improper "outside influence" may without merit light contrary judicial interpretation rule, well 606(b)'s plain language legislative history. Even if interpreted retain exception allowing postverdict inquiry into incompetence cases "substantial wholly conclusive incompetency," record here falls far short extremely strong showing incompetency requires. 116-126. (b) An required Sixth Amendment competent unimpaired jury. That adequately protected aspects process, voir dire, fact preverdict conduct observable court, counsel, personnel, other here, allow post-trial misconduct. 126-127. 2. To extent Seminole, violate conspiracies "to States, agency thereof." Government's recipient financial assistance, subject supervision, must treated "the States" 371 untenable, statute's unambiguous concession "agency" thereunder, absence indication history should expanded cover those acting behalf States. Given immense variety assistance arrangements, suggested requirement there ongoing supervision" defrauded nongovernmental intermediary before crime against occurs fails provide real guidance. However, conspired cause make misrepresentations REA, convictions stand. remand, consider sufficiency charge. 128-132. 3. If, premise its affirmance 371—is rejected, scheme through mails. 133-134. 772 F.2d 765, (CA11 1985), part remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts III IV I II, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, SCALIA, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, concurring dissenting part, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 134. John A. DeVault, III, Timothy J. Corrigan, Jacksonville, Fla., petitioners. Richard Lazarus, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 Petitioners Eleventh Circuit convictions. 765 (1985). argue erred admit post-verdict trial; count indictment failed charge We affirm remand. 2 * manager Florida corporation owned operated 11 rural electric distribution cooperatives. generates transmits electrical energy 3 In 1979, borrowed $1.1 billion Financing Bank order construct coal-fired near Palatka, Florida. (REA), credit Department Agriculture assists organizations providing loans, guaranteeing loans sources, approving security arrangements borrower obtain financing. A Brief History Telephone Programs agreement provided supervision project. Under contract, could equipment system, inspect, examine, test all work relating App. 61-62. Bulletins memoranda approval letting contracts, used depending type contract. Id., 83, 105-108. 4 Construction Palatka began September 1979. area where transmission line run, plans called 51mile patrol heavy trucks resist flooding, 1981, informed current contractor having difficulty obtaining enough suitable material indicated it attempted locate alternative materials, contract price have increased substantially complete terminated. 5 Following meeting road, friend, Tanner. limerock mine, two using overburden material. request, engineer examined mine determined acquired interim basis so continue while bids solicited remainder provision building Both money REA's approval. final respects. both May 14, 1981. approximately $1,041,800, $548,000. 10. 6 Several developed working There dispute maintain roads leading advised ambiguous pay maintenance road; ultimately Later, Treasury Department. July represented considerably more advanced than It also discovered course limerock, weakens when wet, areas flooding. For spread sand, higher sand first contractor. completed October 7 January 1981 perform landscaping install sprinkler condominium complex early $10,035, partial payment work; eventually received total $15,000 work. purchased loaned $6,000 close condominium. 8 finished, representatives members cooperative requested end relations initiated internal investigation, suspended later demoted company's conflict interest policies. 9 authorities investigated situation, 1983 indicted. 6-week resulted hung mistrial declared. reindicted; second fifth counts separate instances counts; three. 10 day scheduled motion, continuance sentencing date, According accompanying attorney unsolicited telephone Vera Asbul. 246. Juror Asbul breaks various times 247. continued ordered parties file memoranda, heard jurors. verdict. witnesses, took stand testified point 170. Earlier referred conversation sometimes asleep. During extended exchange twice immediately inform being inattentive, measures take informed: 12 "MR. MILBRATH [defense counsel]: But, event, I've noticed period days couple particular been taking long naps "THE COURT: Is right. Maybe didn't notice 13 because was— 14 MILBRATH: imagine Prosecutors two. 15 What's your solution? 16 Well, just think respectful comment are getting drowsy, ask break something might helpful. 17 here's what done past you do very diplomatically, course: once said, remember, 'I we'll let everybody up stretch, it's little sleepy here,' doesn't sound good record. "I'm going to—not responsibility. If see happening, bench conference come tell me I'll figure it, won't mention who it. 19 All 20 I'm sit watch. I'm—among things, see—this off 21 "(Discussion record.) 22 ". [T]his thing jury, don't know how interesting not; some look like they're pretty interested. 23 24 "And, say, are, how—either recess or—which likely do." Tr. 12-100-12-101. 25 As despite above admonitions matter again. 147. 26 "Nothing my case anyone appearing intoxicated," stated, adding, "I saw nothing were." 172. 27 stating "[o]n offered specifically find motions leave appropriate." 181-182. 28 While appeal pending Circuit, additional affidavit, stated visit residence juror, Daniel Hardy. 241. Despite Hardy's arranged Hardy interviewed private investigators. 242. transcribed, sworn attached "felt big party." 209. seven noon recess. Four Hardy, "a pitcher three pitchers" beer recesses. 212. Of alcohol, occasions mixed drinks recess, foreperson, liter wine each occasions. 213-215. smoked marijuana quite regularly 216-223. Moreover, ingest cocaine five times. 227. One sold quarter pound marijuana, cocaine, paraphernalia courthouse. 234-235. noted asleep described himself "flying." 229. visited residence, no contacted concerning conduct, return statement. 232. said came forward clear conscience" "[b]ecause felt people Mr. better opportunity get somebody review facts right." 231-232. 29 Court, "contain supplemental allegations differ quantitatively qualitatively April motions," id., 256, 30 affirmed. granted certiorari, 479 929, 397, 93 351 (1986), testimony, within meaning 371. II 31 ordering assert holdings Appeals, ingestion 606(b). authorized compelled 32 By beginning century, earlier, near-universal firmly flatly prohibited admission See Wigmore, 2352, pp. 696-697 (J. McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) (common-law originating 1785 Lord Mansfield, "came receive adherence almost unquestioned"). 33 Exceptions recognized situations "extraneous influence," Mattox v. 146 140, 149, 50, 53, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892), Mattox, held describing read prejudicial information evidence. allowed outsiders Parker Gladden, 385 363, 365, 87 468, 470, 420 (1966) (bailiff's comments defendant), Remmer 347 227, 228-230, 74 450, 450-452, 98 654 (1954) (bribe juror). Smith Phillips, 455 209, 102 940, 71 78 (1982) (juror criminal submitted application employment Attorney's office). fall external influence, however, adhered admitting McDonald Pless, 238 264, 35 783, 59 1300 (1915); Hyde 225 347, 384, 793, 808, 56 1114 (1912). 34 Lower courts external/internal distinction identify impeaching admissible. literally inside room irregularity place; rather, nature allegation. Clearly rigid event place unhelpful. example, location newspaper room. Instead, course, has considered Thomas, 463 1061 (CA7 1972). Similarly, locational comprehended judge's instructions, since takes Courts wisely inability hear comprehend matter. Government Virgin Islands Nicholas, 759 1073 (CA3 1985); Davis 47 1071 (CA5 1931) (rejecting instruction court). Most significant present case, lower physical mental "internal" rather "external" matters. Dioguardi, 492 70 (CA2 1974), defendant Dioguardi letter soon explained she "eyes ears things [they] happen," her eyes "are partly open" curse put years ago." 75. Armed opinions psychiatrists suffering psychological disorder, sought competence. "[t]he mind," 79, observed: "The quickness findings will set aside proof tampering parallel reluctance inquire deliberations valid face. exceptions undermine rationale possible abnormalities inquired 'in gravest most important cases.' " n. 12, quotingMcDonald supra, U.S., 269, S.Ct., 785 (emphasis original). 37 faced mentally incompetent, "courts refused even further inquiry, unless adjudication insanity closely advance service," contemporaneous independent incompetency." F.2d, 80. Sullivan Fogg, 613 465, 467 1980) (allegation consideration); Allen, 588 1100, 1106, 1979) (noting "specific probe minds deliberated verdict"); Pellegrini, 441 F.Supp. 1367 (ED Pa.1977), aff'd, 586 836 (CA3), cert. denied, 439 1050, 99 731, 58 711 (1978) (whether sufficiently understood English influence"). reviewed allegation impairment interfered understanding "external influence." 1079. 38 Substantial considerations 1915 necessity shielding public scrutiny: 39 "[L]et verdicts solemnly made publicly returned can attacked publication be, many followed hope discovering invalidate finding. Jurors harassed beset defeated party effort secure misconduct thus secured used, result intended deliberation, constant investigation—to destruction frankness freedom conference." 267-268, 784. 40 (1892). 41 Court's requiring extrinsic relationships tainted detract from, harmonize with, weighty government insulating deliberative process. office); reported bribe subjected investigation). integrity proceedings jeopardized unauthorized invasions," 229, 451, applied seek processes 42 doubt investigation lead invalidation reached irresponsible behavior. clear, survive efforts perfect Allegations misconduct, incompetency, inattentiveness, raised days, weeks, months seriously disrupt finality See, e.g., 1081 (one year eight rendered, difficulties evidence). jurors' willingness unpopular laypeople undermined barrage scrutiny conduct. Note, Public Disclosures Jury Deliberations, 96 Harv.L.Rev. 886, 888-892 (1983). 43 grounded extraneous influences. Gereau, 523 1975); S.Rep. 93-1277, (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, 7051 (observing "embodied law"). states: 44 "Upon validity indictment, occurring influencing assent dissent connection therewith, juror. Nor precluded testifying purposes." 45 presented inapplicable affidavits fact, appears virtually proposition. D. Louisell C. Mueller, 287, 121-125 (1979) (under "proof following effects excludable .: inattentive deliberations, sleeping thinking matters"); cf. Impeachment Verdicts Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 417, 430-431, 88 "juror probably inadmissible"; note author suggests "[o]ne determine acts, becoming simply rule," cites authority suggestion). Rather, our view cannot easily stretched circumstance. However severe use, voluntarily ingested seems virus, poorly food, lack sleep. 46 whatever ambiguity linger resolved Rule. 1972, criticism proposed broader verdicts, Advisory Committee drafted version Compare 51 F.R.D. 315, 387 (1971) 183, 265 (1972); 117 Cong.Rec. 33642, 33645 (letter Sen. McClellan criticizing earlier proposal); 33655 proposal arguing "[s]trong permitted occurred deliberations"). adopted transmitted Congress. House Judiciary follows: 48 "As limited indictment. He (e.g. radio newscast account) threat safety member family), irregularities formulation quotient drunken condition fellow disabled participate deliberations." H.R.Rep. 93-650, 9-10 (1973), 7083 supplied). 49 Committee, persuaded practice "objective misconduct," amended comport expansive versions drafts,* passed version. 50 Senate voice disagreement House's House. Indeed, Report "considerably broader" "would permit into, happened room." 7060. With differences 606(b)—an identical House—the decided reject adopt narrower explained: "[The version's] extension unwarranted ill-advised. 52 suggestion Judicial Conference Supreme embodied law. Although forbidding processes, deletes proscription 'as deliberations.' deletion opening challenge follow instructions deliberations. 53 "Permitting individual attack unwise 54 55 stands then, former exploitation disgruntled otherwise badly-motivated ex-jurors. "Public requires litigation. And common fairness absolute preserved engage free debate necessary attainment verdicts. able function effectively scrutinized protecting citizens work, 606 jurors." 13-14, 57 reaffirms Congress' 606(b): "[T]he bill allows objective matters reaching does H.R.Conf.Rep. 93-1597, 7102. adopted, Congress enacted, demonstrates uncommon clarity understood, considered, rejected intoxication. provides reasonable reading Finally, 80, standard. suggested, worst, fell Judge appropriately "an unobstructed view" sleeping. 147-149, 167-168; 1077 ("[I]t appropriate draw knowledge recollection considering factual related events presence"). court's local interviews, MD Fla.Rule 2.04(c); alone discretion disregarding affidavit. describes dramatic meager. consumption intoxicated. Pet. Cert. ("I told [the prosecutor] we go us drink drunk, wasn't"). properly observations "falling trial," 46, 55. These suffice made. 60 refusal "violates sixth amendment's guarantee fair impartial jury." 61 tribunal afford hearing." Jordan Massachusetts, 167, 176, 651, 652, 1038 response introduce allegations. issue Constitution kind Rules. 62 above, long-recognized concerns protection intrusive inquiry. interests hand, suitability responsibility service, dire. personnel. Provenzano, 620 985, 996-997 (marshal sequestered smoking morning hours). other, report inappropriate behavior render Lee 454 A.2d 770 (DC App.1982), sub nom. McIlwain 464 972, 104 409, 349 (1983) (on suggesting foreperson incapacitated). Taliaferro, 558 724, 725-726 (CA4 1977) (court records club dined, marshal accompanied deliberations). giving ample produce supporting 63 sources conclude deciding, inadmissibility insufficiency petitioners, unnecessary. 64 Title provides, relevant part: 65 "If persons conspire either commit offense thereof manner purpose, act object conspiracy, shall fined $10,000 imprisoned years, both." 66 Section descendent bears resemblance laws statute books 1867. Act Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 169, 30, Stat. 484 (prohibiting "defraud whatever"). Neither original 1867 subsequent reincarnations particularly illuminating preceded, interpreting scope phrase purpose." repeatedly covered "reaches 'any impairing, obstructing defeating lawful department Government.' Dennis 384 855, 861, 86 1840, 1844, 973 (1966), quoting Haas Henkel, 216 462, 479, 249, 253, 569 (1910); Glasser 315 60, 66, 457, 463, 680 (1942); Hammerschmidt 182, 188, 511, 512, 68 968 (1924). reconsider aspect case. Therefore, impair functioning form injury 67 charged impeding, functions administration enforcement program." 5. adduced defraud, then target Electric, receiving constitute sets arguments first, accept, effected third parties. asserts itself purposes rejected. 69 observes, correctly, law fraud. H. Brill, Cyclopedia Criminal Law 1244, 1892 (1923). correctly observes broad covering purpose," puts limits method makes uses innocent individuals businesses reason beyond False Claims Act, reaches "[e]very person causes made, presents presented" false claim Rev.Stat. 5438, passes hands way claimant release culpability Act. Bornstein, 423 303, 309, 523, 528, 514 (1976); ex rel. Marcus Hess, 317 537, 541-545, 379, 383-385, 443 (1943). principal great deal proposition above. argues States." criminalized defined effectuate also—and importantly—by conspiracy. covers thereof," concedes describe Electric. Oral Arg. ("We say agents"). suggests, served performing official Government, 72 position Dixson 465 482, 1172, 79 458 (1984), decision involving bribery statute, 201(a). Far illustrates why untenable. 201's provisions pertaining officials 201(a) "public official" include officer employee branch function, agency, Government." officers private, nonprofit administering expenditure community development block grants officials" "on of" open defendants unambiguously so. found applicable section's Dixson, 491-496, 1177-1180. fail[ed] clarify statutory language," observed, "our lenity compel construe favor cases." 491, 1177; Rewis 401 812, 91 1056, 1059, 493 (1971). 73 Unlike arguable construed 201(a)'s reference Rather language, asks expand do. pegged section, overcome "ambiguity ambit statutes lenity." 1059. wrested aid 371's stingy much commend application. logic someone receives replies "there delegation distinctly 'United States.' 25-26. Yet demonstrate ascertaining "substantial." emphasizes supervisory powers agreement; restrictions placed comparable "that places transaction." 19. ways always guidance apparent. "A judicially construed, discernable meaning." 1188 (dissenting opinion). 75 sweeping have, effect, substituted "anyone thereof" 371—must fail, manipulate that: 76 "It falsely represent REA-approved competitive procedure awarding contracts." 7. 77 Because below, remand question. Each furtherance artifice defraud: "(a) program; 80 "(b) Inc., process services run honestly deceit, corruption fraud, honest faithful employees." 12. 81 appeal, argued context reversed, argued, proved 771. 82 83 "Appellants V upheld establishes effectuating so, appellants contend, charge, establish, already Seminole." Ibid. added). 84 convictions—that 85 judgment remanded consistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS join, part. Every constitutional tried "[d]ue implies hearing," (1912), capable willing decide solely it." 217, 946, (1982). charged, portions aside. directing district ignore gross debilitating denigrates precious Accordingly, opinion.1 89 outset, asked explore incompetency. today's noted: permits memory, reasons did, consequences actions. observe demeanor cross-examination evaluate answers circumstances case." 222, 948 (O'CONNOR, concurring).2 profoundly disturbing. few weeks returned, Asbel, wanted conscience. She male drinking every "slept afternoons." Tina Franklin, confirm charges. revelations, hearing. Like believed Asbel's statements 92 later, buttressed detailed rampant members, volunteered Hardy.3 statement, himself, 210. four shared pitchers daily basis. "consumed time." 239. female selected alcoholic" lunch. 213-214. Two 215. limit themselves however. They "[j]ust day." 222. addition, lines" 225. substances—alcohol, marijuana. maintained user, identified "John," 234. knew contraption bathroom back down sniffing got cold." assessment impact consumption; "[m]ost, jurors," trial." least John, went stay awake trial: "John talked flying," mean "he messed up." suggest senses significantly dulled distorted alcohol.4 charges, characterization "one party," understatement. 94 seriousness refuses vindicate fundamental holds absolutely exploring means available examination forward. ruling mistaken belief policies advance. 95 readily acknowledge now dissatisfied litigants. 784-785, Committee's Notes Fed.Rule Evid. U.S.C.App., 700. simultaneously recognized, "simply putting effective promote injustice." above-referenced threaten give way. (1966); underlying rights. unrelated terms, renders incompetent subjects: (i) "matter statement" deliberations; (ii) "effect" "mind emotions" relates "assent verdict"; (iii) "mental processes" verdict."5 bar absolute.6 undisputed exclude 290, 151 (1979); Jurors—Rule 431, (1978). particularly, "operates prohibit verifiable manifestations," Weinstein Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 606[04], 606-28 (1985) added); matters, remain testify. 601. involves objectively prior claims analysis confirms inapplicability emphasizes, Rule—the restrictive permissive version, reproduced ante, 123, *, focused transpired themselves.7 Report, quoted 125, compares admissibility during, to, deliberations: 7102 obvious conclusion, 601, Report's passing 122—123, contrary. Reflecting focus authors deliberations.8 invasion contemplated. Permitting "make "Allowing [jurors] inner reactions hazard values protected." 701. 100 agreed nonetheless Rule's exception.9 common-sense matter, influences members. Commentators abuse, exception. paves became hallucinogenic narcotic similarly provable." Evidence, 289, 143-145 (footnote omitted). 606-29—606-32 ("Rule witness regardless room"). influences, sleep" qualify. Ante, 122. Distinguishing line-drawing. sorts distinctions numerous contexts; differentiating intoxicants involved minor indispositions affecting competency. 101 assures process: dire; observation personnel; (so rendered). 127. Reliance safeguards, exclusion misguided. Voir dire disclose choose testimony. supervised personnel alcoholic beverages drugs. companions purposely avoided observation. municipal parking garage "[d]own Hyatt Regency" "away everybody." 218, reliance "[y]ou infer seen that." 167. transcript 113—114, indicate, abdicated monitoring stated: responsibility" ." 12-100—12-101. 103 acknowledges "postverdict behavior," maintains "[i]t 120. asking behaved consonant minimum requirements Amendment. deny opportunity, survive, become meaningless. dissent. proposal, therewith. indicating H.R. 5463, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974). agree disposition §§ join 229-230, 451-452, (1954); 467-468 1980). Asbel initiative. telephoned, 246-247, showed home bothering conscience." office. "She testify." pursued cited 126, implicated attempt downplay charges unconvincing: 'falling trial,' 126. alleged, trial" impaired faculties raises serious incompetence. shown Cf. 365-366, 470-471, (1966). "[A] expressly authorizes information" infra, 9. Proponents reluctant reached, resort "quotient verdict." 120 2374-2375 (1974) (statement Rep. Wiggins); McClellan); 33649, (Dept. Analysis Recommendations Regarding Revised Draft Proposed Rules Magistrates). explains, 124, 7060 ("[R]ule jurors"). ("Under sole cramped isolated contained 8. source Subcommittee, reinstatement (the House); primarily permitted. Hearings Special Subcommittee Reform Laws Judiciary, 1st Sess., 389 (1973). letter, writer dropped intoxication, focusing exclusively (Supplement), 27-28 hardly dispositive. comparison show practice." None Reports allusion

Classification Label: 0