Court Opinion

ID: 9487947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:30:57.779053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:34.762254
License: Public Domain

SKINNER, District Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with Part I of the majority opinion. In my view the traditional plenary investigative power of the grand jury was at least broad enough to cover its activity in this case. I also agree with Part IV of the opinion. I have some doubt, however, that the attenuated inferences in the prosecutors’ argument described in Part II of the opinion are sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but I would not dissent on this ground alone.
I do disagree with Part III of the opinion, which deals with the district court’s instruction No. 10, quoted on page 10. In my view this instruction does create an irrational permissive inference that the defendant had a motive to lie because of the existence of a federal statute making it “improper for a union official to accept any union campaign contributions from any employer.” Fundamental to the integrity of this inference is the assumption that the defendant was aware of the statute, which was not established by the evidence. The underlying assumption is that because of his extensive union activity he would have known of this statute. Such underlying assumptions are supposed to be based on common experience. I submit that *1389common experience teaches that people are, more often than not, woefully ignorant of the statutes which govern their activities.1
Furthermore, I believe that a jury might well assume that violation of a federal law would carry a significant sanction, which would be a strong inducement to lie. The fact that there is no civil or criminal penalty attached to the statute in question was not revealed to the jury. In my view this omission compounds the error.
In my opinion this was plain error, and in the context of this case, I can not say that it was harmless. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. Some of us may have noted this phenomenon even among lawyers, and (dare I say it?) judges.