Bruno v. United States
60 S. Ct. 198, 1939 U.S. LEXIS 38, 308 U.S. 287 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant in a federal criminal trial has an indefeasible statutory right to a jury instruction that their failure to testify does not create any presumption against them, and the denial of such a requested instruction is not a technical error to be disregarded.
Facts:
- Jerry Bruno was one of eighty-eight co-defendants convicted of conspiracy to violate federal narcotic laws.
- Some of Bruno’s co-defendants testified during the trial, but Bruno himself chose not to take the witness stand.
- The trial court instructed the jury that a defendant who testifies has an interest that may affect their credibility.
- Bruno requested an additional instruction that his failure to take the witness stand should not create any presumption against him and should not be permitted to weigh in the slightest degree against him or enter into jury deliberations.
- The trial judge denied Bruno's requested instruction, stating he felt he had already covered the matter.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Bruno, along with eighty-seven others, was convicted of conspiracy to violate narcotic laws in a federal trial court.
- Bruno appealed his conviction to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the trial judge erred by refusing to give his requested jury instruction.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Bruno's conviction, acknowledging that the requested guidance on his failure to testify had not been given, but found no error in its refusal.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.
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 defendant in a federal criminal prosecution have an indefeasible statutory right to have the jury instructed that their failure to testify in their own behalf does not create any presumption against them?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution has an indefeasible statutory right to have the jury instructed that their failure to testify in their own behalf does not create any presumption against them. The Court reasoned that the Act of March 16, 1878 (now 28 U.S.C. § 832), which granted an accused the privilege to be a witness, explicitly stated that their 'failure to make such a request shall not create any presumption against him.' This congressional command implies a traditional judicial duty to guide the jury by providing relevant instructions. The requested instruction was concededly correct, and the Act gave Bruno the right to invoke it. The Court further held that the denial of this right was not a 'technical error' under the Act of February 26, 1919 (now 28 U.S.C. § 391), because that Act was intended to prevent mere procedural formalities from touching the merits of a verdict, whereas the right to this instruction concerns a substantial privilege granted by Congress. The Court rejected the argument that such an instruction is psychologically futile, stating it was for Congress to decide what was legally significant and that courts should not disregard the will of Congress based on dogmatic psychological assumptions about jurors.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the importance of jury instructions in safeguarding an accused's statutory rights, particularly those rooted in the privilege against self-incrimination. It establishes that a statutory right to a specific jury instruction is not a mere technicality but a substantial right, the denial of which cannot be excused under harmless error statutes. The decision underscores the judiciary's duty to actively give effect to legislative commands regarding trial procedure and jury guidance, even if there are arguments about the psychological efficacy of such instructions, prioritizing the will of Congress.
