Legal Document

487 U.S. 250 108 S.Ct. 2369 101 L.Ed.2d 228 The BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. William A. KILPATRICK, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED Nos. 87-578, 87-602. Argued April 27, 1988. Decided June 22, Syllabus District Court dismissed an indictment against petitioners and others on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct irregularities in grand jury proceedings, finding that dismissal was proper due to violations Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 6 under "totality circumstances," including "numerous" Rules 6(d) (e); 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 6003 Fifth Sixth Amendments Constitution; prosecution's knowing presentation misinformation mistreatment witnesses. In apparent alternative holding, also ruled dismissal, pursuant its supervisory authority, necessary order deter future conduct this sort. Appeals reversed, ruling were not prejudiced by Government's conduct, absent prejudice lacked authority invoke power dismiss indictment. Held: 1. As a general matter, district court may for errors proceedings unless such defendants. Pp. 254-257. (a) A federal circumvent harmless-error inquiry prescribed 52(a). Since 52 promulgated statute which invested with prescribe rules pleading, practice, procedure, because provided "all laws conflict [with rule] shall be no further force effect," § 687 (1946 ed.), is, every pertinent respect, as binding any statute. Courts have more discretion disregard Rule's mandate through exercise than they do constitutional or statutory provisions power. conclusion showing is required supported United States Mechanik, 475 66, 106 938, 89 50, involved before jury, Hasting, 461 499, 103 1974, 76 96, which, unlike present cases, error. rule permitting courts deal sternly nonconstitutional harmless are likewise would inappropriate. 254-256. (b) At least cases involving error, standard should apply assessing whether prior trial's articulated supra, at 78, S.Ct., 945-946 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring judgment), whereby appropriate only "if it established substantially influenced jury's decision indict," if there "grave doubt" free from substantial influence. must distinguished class indictments structural protections been so compromised render fundamentally unfair, allowing presumption without particular assessment prejudicial impact. See, e.g., Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 617, 88 598 (racial discrimination selection jury), Ballard States, 329 187, 67 261, 91 L.Ed. 181 (exclusion women jury). 256-257. 2. record does support jury. No error occurred during instances alleged insufficient raise question, much less grave doubt, had effect indict. 257-263. 821 F.2d 1456 (CA10 1987) affirmed. KENNEDY, delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. filed opinion, post, p. ---. MARSHALL, dissenting James E. Nesland, Denver, Colo., petitioners. C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 issue presented investigation, where 2 * 1982, after 20-month investigation conducted two successive juries, eight defendants, Kilpatrick, Declan J. O'Donnell, Sheila Lerner, Bank Nova Scotia, indicted 27 counts. first 26 counts charged all defendants conspiracy some them mail tax fraud. Count Kilpatrick obstruction justice. Colorado initially failure charge crime, improper and, charges bank, allege bank agents requisite knowledge criminal intent. tried convicted justice count. 3 Government appealed Before oral argument, however, granted defense motion remand case hearing additional grounds dismissal. Judge Fred M. Winner presided over post-trial motions new trial later reassigned John L. Kane, Jr., complete proceedings. After 10 days hearings, Kane held various 6. 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1353 (1984). Further, "numerous (e), Fed.R.Crim.P., 6003, Constitution, witnesses." Ibid. We discuss these findings detail below. 4 determined "[a]s result prosecutors their entourage agents, indicting able undertake essential mission" act independently prosecution. 5 "[t]he used circumstances those declare unmistakable intention neither 'silly' nor 'frivolous' will tolerated." once again, divided panel reversed 1987). rejected Court's independent ground It then "the totality did warrant indictment," id., 1473, accumulation attorneys significantly infringe ability judgment." Id., 1474. Without infringement, held, could 1474-1475. 7 judge "view majority defendant shown can powers egregious misconduct." 1476. her view, relied pervaded rendering remedy safeguard integrity judicial process notwithstanding absence 1479-1480. 8 hold that, II 9 "may, within limits, formulate procedural specifically Constitution Congress." 505, 1978, 96 (1983). Nevertheless, well "[e]ven sensible efficient use . invalid conflicts provisions." Thomas Arn, 140, 148, 466, 471-472, 435 (1985). To allow otherwise "would confer judiciary discretionary considered limitations law enforcing." Payner, 447 727, 737, 100 2439, 2447, 65 468 (1980). Our previous addressed explicitly rationale bars where, here, mandated Procedure. now 52(a) provides "[a]ny defect, irregularity variance affect rights disregarded." ed.) (currently codified, amended, 3771), us "to prescribe, time time, procedure respect verdict. ." Like present-day successor, became effective therewith effect." follows duly enacted Congress, provisions. balance struck between societal costs accused casually overlooked "because has elected analyze question power." 736, 2446-2447. 11 exceeds dismissing other decisions 50 (1986), we "no reason [Rule ] 'errors, defects, irregularities, variances' occurring just applied itself." 71-72, 942. U.S., 506, 1979, "[s]upervisory reverse conviction needed when since, definition, obtained asserted error." stated deterrence inappropriate reversal "means narrowly tailored objectionable available." recognized harmless, concerns about "integrity [judicial] process" carry weight, ibid., doctrine simply "in chastise what view[s] overreaching." 507, 1979. Unlike see infra, ----, Hasting devise harmless. 12 Having concluded our customary applicable us, asked trial, turn claims. adopt purpose, sought O'CONNOR supra. Under standard, violation indict influence violations. 945-946. This based Kotteakos 328 750, 758-759, 66 1239, 1244-1245, 90 1557 (1946), construing incorporated into 52(a), Lane, 438, 454-455, 725, 734-735, 814 (1986) (BRENNAN, dissenting), overturned unless, examining whole, concludes "substantial influence" outcome proceeding. 765, 1248. 13 dismissed, impact each case, deemed fundamental. These explained isolated exceptions rule. think, clear explanation ones prejudice. See Rose Clark, 478 570, 577-578, 3101, 3105-3106, 92 460 (1986). exemplified 260-264, 621-624, racial jurors compelled addition magnitude, remedies impractical presumed discriminatorily selected treat unfairly. 70-71, n. 1, 942, reached like excluded nature allowed prejudiced, unguided speculation. Such considerations review assess influence, any, factual context us. III 14 Though differs Appeals, reach same affirm reversing set forth agreement established. 15 found violated 6(e) by: (1) disclosing materials Internal Revenue Service employees having civil enforcement responsibilities; (2) failing give prompt notice disclosures; (3) potential witnesses names targets investigation; (4) instructing witnesses, who represented separate shelters, reveal substance testimony testified joint appearances IRS purpose reading transcripts jurors. 16 one improperly argued expert witness recess gave adverse Government. immunity statute, 6002, "pocket immunity" (immunity representation prosecutor rather judge), caused mischaracterize given Furthermore, Amendment calling number sole assert privilege self-incrimination conducting postindictment interviews several high-level Scotia. Finally, sworn thereby elevating credibility. 17 noted, unrelated independence decisionmaking agree cite matters seven testify despite avowed privilege. take face value unsworn assertions made outside room. Once invoked record, immediately ceased questioning. Throughout moreover, prosecution repeated caution draw inference witness' invocation Amendment. App. 109, 130-131, 131-132, 155, 169-170. inquire infringed. infringement doubt violation's indict, but grant certiorari conclusion. note "a significant judgment," F.2d, 1475, accept here. faced history misconduct, spanning systematic pervasive serious fundamental fairness resulted 19 address, whether, independence, influenced. Several Court—that manipulated gather evidence audits; secrecy publicly identifying subject matter imposed obligations upon witnesses—might relevant allegation intent abuse process. Here, plain breaches affected charging decision. occasion consider further. 20 left prosecutors: fashioned administered unauthorized "oaths" 6(c); "summarize" falsely incorrectly summarized previously jury; deliberately berated mistreated presence jurors; abused providing 23 witnesses; (5) permitted appear tandem 6(d). turn. 21 oaths swearing "agents" Although administration unauthorized, ample understood aligned prosecutors. times referred "my agent(s)," 98, 99, 108, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 137, 153, 163, 165, 171, 176, discussions prosecutors, "your guys" agents." 157. There nothing indicate reliability credibility elevated, effect, negligible. 22 petitioners, misleading inaccurate summaries Because summaries, provide offered contained boils down challenge competence valid challenge. Calandra, 414 338, 344-345, 94 613, 618-619, 38 561 (1974). extent accuracy mere fact itself unreliable sufficient require Costello 350 359, 363, 406, 408-409, 397 (1956) (holding look behind determine sufficient). light knew false misleading, falsely, clearly erroneous. doubts certain aspects quite different falsity. abusive concedes treatment improper, himself his unaffected misconduct. instructed anything heard conversations witness, deliberations. 191. ameliorative measures, prosecutor's toward evaluation 24 course deciding propriety granting conclude create Some told immunized retained refuse testify, while privilege, fail how point aware 25 Assuming threatened withdraw manipulate testimony, might rise finding. attorney "testified Mr. bets off." attorney, ultimately mean imply withdrawn client validly perjury. F.Supp., 1338. statement interpreted he favorably withdrawn, definitive witness. felt statement, subjective fear cannot ascribed governmental was, most, consideration bearing testimony. transcripts. read 6(d), prejudicial. own ask questions answer readings. agents' enhanced undue considering foregoing incidents episodes dozens thousands documents. view context, occur not, even cumulatively, charge. 28 Errors kind remedied adequately means For example, punished contempt court. Fed. Crim.Proc. 6(e)(2). addition, direct show cause why disciplined request bar Department initiate disciplinary him. published opinion. focus culpable individual windfall unprejudiced defendant. IV 29 If decision, meet standard. judgment 30 ordered. 31 concurring. 32 I inherent it, assuredly includes decline proceed law. lower courts' insofar affects judgments brought though supervise courts. Cf. Frazier Heebe, 482 641, 651-652, 107 2607, 2614, 557 (1987) (REHNQUIST, dissenting). Even court's "supervisory discipline jurisdiction," (1983), except performance qualifications members bar. 33 join understand here 34 dissenting. 35 concur analysis already outlined my objections approach, converts "Congress' command regarding form words, practical 84, 948-949, (MARSHALL, strict protection rarely come light. especially true pretrial setting, defendants' chief source information disclosures Jencks Act, 3500, until underway. knows unlikely discovered gives little enough bite. afford occasional revelation insulation leaves toothless. Moreover, case-by-case actually too speculative meaningful protection, imposes difficult burden outweighs benefits derived." 86, 950. Given deterred redressed effectively per se Today's reduces code honor violate virtual impunity. respectfully dissent.

Classification Label: 0