Berger v. United States
295 U.S. 78 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's persistent and pronounced misconduct, including misstating facts and asserting personal knowledge, violates a defendant's right to a fair trial and requires reversal of a conviction, especially when the evidence against the defendant is weak.
Facts:
- The government charged Berger and others with being part of a single conspiracy to utter counterfeit notes.
- Evidence presented at trial tended to establish the existence of two separate conspiracies, not one.
- One conspiracy involved individuals named Rice and Katz, who planned to use counterfeit money to buy rings.
- A second conspiracy involved Berger, Jones, and Katz, who planned to pass counterfeit notes to tradesmen.
- The only common element connecting the two conspiracies was the participation of Katz and the use of the same type of counterfeit money.
- There was no evidence that Berger was a party to the conspiracy between Rice and Katz.
- During the trial, the prosecuting U.S. Attorney repeatedly misstated facts during cross-examination, argued with witnesses, and made improper insinuations and assertions of personal knowledge during his argument to the jury.
Procedural Posture:
- Berger was indicted in a federal district court (trial court) on charges including conspiracy.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, Berger's motion to dismiss the conspiracy count was denied by the trial court.
- A jury in the district court convicted Berger on the conspiracy count.
- Berger appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding any errors to be harmless.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Berger's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's persistent misconduct, including misstating facts, arguing with witnesses, and asserting personal knowledge to the jury, violate a defendant's right to a fair trial, requiring the conviction to be reversed?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Sutherland
Yes. A prosecutor's persistent misconduct violates a defendant's right to a fair trial and warrants reversal of a conviction. The court first addressed the variance between the indictment (alleging one conspiracy) and the proof (showing two conspiracies). It held that under the harmless error statute, such a variance is not fatal unless it prejudices the defendant's substantial rights, which it did not find in this case. However, the court found the prosecutor's conduct to be the dispositive issue. The U.S. Attorney's role is not that of an ordinary party but of a representative of a sovereignty whose interest in a criminal prosecution is 'not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' The prosecutor's actions—misstating facts, bullying witnesses, and asserting personal knowledge—were 'pronounced and persistent' and constituted 'foul blows.' In a case where the evidence against the defendant is weak, as it was against Berger, such misconduct is highly likely to prejudice the jury and cannot be considered harmless. The trial judge's mild instructions to disregard were insufficient to cure the 'evil influence' of the misconduct, thus a new trial is required.
Analysis:
The Berger case establishes a foundational principle of prosecutorial ethics and its constitutional implications. It solidifies the prosecutor's dual role as both a zealous advocate for the government and a minister of justice. The decision clarifies that prosecutorial misconduct is not merely an ethical breach but can rise to the level of a due process violation requiring reversal, especially when the evidence is not overwhelming. This holding created a framework for appellate review that balances the severity of the misconduct against the strength of the government's case, influencing countless subsequent decisions regarding fair trial rights and setting a high standard for prosecutorial behavior.
Unlock the full brief for Berger v. United States