Griffin v. United States
502 U.S. 46 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy charge is valid and need not be set aside when the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction as to one of the objects, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support conviction on at least one other object.
Facts:
- Diane Griffin, Alex Beverly, and Betty McNulty were involved in a conspiracy.
- The indictment alleged the conspiracy had two objects: (1) impairing the efforts of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ascertain taxes, and (2) impairing the efforts of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to ascertain forfeitable assets.
- Evidence introduced at trial implicated Griffin in the IRS-related object of the conspiracy.
- The government conceded that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to connect Griffin to the DEA-related object of the conspiracy.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Diane Griffin and others on multiple counts.
- Griffin was charged in Count 20 with a single count of conspiracy with two objects: defrauding the IRS and defrauding the DEA.
- At trial in the U.S. District Court (trial court), Griffin's request for a limiting jury instruction and for special interrogatories was denied.
- The jury returned a general verdict of guilty against Griffin on Count 20.
- Griffin (appellant) appealed her conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy charge need to be set aside when the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction on one of the objects, but sufficient to support a conviction on another?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy charge is not rendered invalid merely because one of the objects is unsupported by sufficient evidence, provided the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction on another object. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where a verdict may have rested on a legally or constitutionally invalid ground, as established in cases like Stromberg v. California and Yates v. United States. The Court reasoned that jurors are well-equipped to analyze evidence and can be presumed to have convicted on a factually supported theory. In contrast, jurors cannot be expected to identify legal errors, such as a theory of liability that is unconstitutional or time-barred. Therefore, when one basis for conviction is merely factually insufficient, the long-standing rule from Turner v. United States applies, and the verdict stands if any of the alleged acts or objects is supported by the evidence.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Agreed in the judgment. While concurring that the Due Process Clause was not violated and that existing precedent does not require reversal, this opinion emphasizes the danger of jury confusion in complex, multi-defendant, multi-count trials. It suggests that the government could have avoided the potential for juror error and this appeal by either charging the two conspiracy objects in separate counts or by agreeing to the use of special interrogatories for the jury. These techniques are commended as preferable practices for complex conspiracy prosecutions to ensure clarity and fairness.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical distinction between legal inadequacy and factual insufficiency as grounds for challenging a general verdict. By limiting the rule from Yates v. United States to cases involving legal or constitutional error, the Court affirmed the traditional rule that a factually unsupported alternative theory does not invalidate a conviction if another theory is supported by the evidence. This holding provides prosecutors greater security in bringing multi-object conspiracy charges, as a failure of proof on one object will not jeopardize a conviction supported by proof of another. It places significant trust in the jury's ability to properly weigh evidence and discard factually unsupported claims, thereby streamlining appellate review of such verdicts.
Unlock the full brief for Griffin v. United States