Court Opinion

ID: 9488711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:53:49.894099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:03.858574
License: Public Domain

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In March 1994, William Johnson entered the Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union in Falls Church, Virginia, and, threatening use of a handgun, robbed it of over $43,000. He was convicted of armed robbery of a federally-insured credit union in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The court sentenced him to 157 months imprisonment.
Subsection (a) of § 2113 makes it a federal offense to rob or attempt to rob “any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association.” Subsection (g) defines “credit union” to mean a federally-chartered credit union or any state-chartered credit union, the accounts of which are federally insured.
At Johnson’s trial, a manager of the Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union testified that the credit union is federally insured. In addition, the government introduced into evidence a “certificate of proof of insured status” which certified that Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union was federally chartered and was federally insured. While Johnson objected to the introduction of the certificate as hearsay, an objection which the court overruled, Johnson did not dispute the incontrovertible fact that Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union was federally insured. Accordingly, when instructing the jury on the elements of the offense, the district court stated, “You are told that the Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union is a credit union within the terms of that statute [18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) ].”
Johnson argues that he has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on every element essential to a conviction and that the district court denied him that right when it, in essence, directed a verdict on the question of whether the credit union was federally insured.
The government argues that whether Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union was federally insured, as defined in the statute, relates to a jurisdictional prerequisite and is more a question of law on which the court could properly instruct the jury than a question of fact. The government argues alternatively that if the instruction was error, it was harmless error. I find the government’s arguments persuasive, particularly in view of the fact that no one in this case questions the assertion that Johnson’s trial served as a reliable vehicle for determining whether he was guilty or innocent of robbing the Arlington Schools Federal Credit Union in March 1994.
All issues about Johnson’s criminal conduct were submitted to the jury and, based on that evidence, the jury convicted him. The evidence of the insured status of the credit union, which did not relate to Johnson’s conduct or the necessary mens rea, was not only undisputed, but incontrovertible. Whether such a question is a jurisdictional one or a peripheral technical matter is not material— it did not prevent the jury from considering the criminality of all of Johnson’s actions in robbing the credit union. It is beyond all doubt that Johnson was properly convicted. To require reversal because the jury was advised by the court that the credit union *147which Johnson robbed was a federal credit union would, in my judgment, promote public disrespect for the criminal process and thereby undermine one of the principal purposes of the harmless error doctrine. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991).
While it may be clear that the district court committed error of a constitutional dimension, it is clearer still that the error was of no consequence and therefore harmless. Indeed, in contexts very similar to this one, dealing with issues more significant to the grant of a fair trial, the Supreme Court has applied principles of harmless error. The list, which is collected in Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 306-07, 111 S.Ct. at 1263, includes application of the harmless error doctrine to cases where the jury instruction contained an erroneous conclusive presumption; the jury instruction misstated an element of the offense; the jury instruction contained an erroneous rebuttable presumption; the court failed to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence; and the court admitted identification evidence or statements of a nontestify-ing codefendant in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Only in a few cases has the Court recognized that the infraction can never be treated as harmless error, and in each of those eases, the constitutional deprivation was a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Id. at 310, 111 S.Ct. at 1265. To be per se harmed error, the error must “transcend[ ] the criminal process.” Id. at 311, 111 S.Ct. at 1265.
The majority’s decision, establishing a per se rule that the error here cannot be harmless, finds in the error a degree of influence that it did not have, and wrongly focuses on the “virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error” rather than on determining whether the trial is rendered fundamentally unfair. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3105, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986). If a defendant is tried without counsel, or is tried before a biased judge, or is tried on the wrong burden of proof, the entire proceeding is undermined and unfair. See id.; Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, -, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2082, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). In such instances the entire proceeding is infected with the error and cannot be redeemed. But that is not the ease before us. Here, all the facts relating to the criminality of Johnson’s conduct were fairly and properly presented to the jury. Only a peripheral, technical requirement of the statute, that which distinguishes the conduct as a federal crime, was given to the jury with the instruction that it had been established, i.e., was not disputed. There is no question that the trial, as conducted, reliably served as a vehicle for determining whether Johnson was guilty or innocent. See Rose, 478 U.S. at 577-78, 106 S.Ct. at 3105-06.
Moreover, the majority’s holding cannot be squared with our recent decision in United States v. Forbes, 64 F.3d 928 (4th Cir.1995). In Forbes, the defendant was charged with two counts of knowingly making a false statement in order to purchase a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and two counts of receiving a firearm while under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). At trial, the district court failed to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove that the defendant knew that he was under indictment in order to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). We held that this was constitutional error because the jury was not instructed on an essential mens rea element of the offense. But we went on to conclude that the error was amenable to a harmless error analysis. Id. at 934. We observed that even though the jury was not instructed on the necessary mens rea under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), the jury necessarily found that fact:
In returning verdicts of guilty on the § 922(a)(6) counts, Forbes’ jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew his statement — “I am not under indictment”— was false. It could not possibly have made this finding without also finding that he knew the truth — he was under indictment. Inasmuch as this latter finding is all that the missing instruction would have called for, we can be certain that the error was harmless.
Id. at 934-935. While the reason we gave there for finding harmless error differs from *148that which I would apply here, Forbes nevertheless illustrates that the failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of an offense is not per se prejudicial.
In concluding that the error in Johnson’s case was harmless, I would hold that where all the facts relating to the defendant’s criminal conduct were fairly and properly presented to the jury and the only element taken from the jury was a peripheral jurisdictional or technical requirement not in dispute, harmless error analysis is appropriate. To distinguish between criminally operative conduct and peripheral technical matters, I would rely on the jurisprudence that defines the conduct for which mens rea is required. Thus, I would hold that conduct for which mens rea — intent or wilfulness — must be proved defines core criminal conduct, the evidence of which in every case must also go to the jury. On the other hand, elements relating to jurisdiction, interstate commerce, federal connections for banks, and the federal status of victims, for which mens rea is not required, fall at the periphery of core conduct, and court error in failing to submit a factual question about them to the jury would be subject to a harmless error analysis. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975). In Feola, the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers. In instructing the jury, the district court stated that the jury was not required to conclude that the defendants were aware that the victims were federal officers. In affirming, the Supreme Court noted that no one in the case questioned that the status of the victim as a federal officer is “jurisdictional.” Id. at 676, 95 S.Ct. at 1259-60. In a footnote explaining the significance of categorizing a requirement as jurisdictional, the Court stated:
The significance of labeling a statutory requirement as “jurisdictional” is not that the requirement is viewed as outside the scope of the evil Congress intended to forestall, but merely that the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act made criminal by the federal statute.
Id. at 676 n. 9, 95 S.Ct. at 1260 n. 9. Thus, the Court held that the criminal conduct for which mens rea is required included only the acts the defendant undertook in committing the assault and not the fact that the victims were federal officers. Id. at 686, 95 S.Ct. at 1265. I would apply the same principles in determining the scope of when harmless error analysis may be applied to jury instructions on the elements of a crime.
Because Johnson’s liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 does not turn on whether he knew the financial institution was federally insured, I would subject the court’s instruction on that issue to a harmless error analysis.
Since I conclude that the district court’s error was harmless, I would affirm.