Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's failure to submit an element of an offense to the jury is a constitutional error subject to harmless-error analysis, not a structural error requiring automatic reversal. Additionally, materiality is an implied essential element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes, derived from the common-law meaning of 'defraud'.
Facts:
- Between 1984 and 1986, Ellis E. Neder, Jr., an attorney and real estate developer, used shell corporations to purchase 12 parcels of land.
- Neder immediately resold the land at inflated prices to limited partnerships he controlled, securing bank loans based on these inflated values.
- To obtain the loans, Neder concealed his control over the shell corporations and falsely represented that the limited partnerships had made substantial down payments.
- Through these schemes, Neder illicitly obtained over $7 million, nearly all of which he failed to report on his personal income tax returns.
- In a separate scheme, Neder obtained a $4.15 million construction loan by falsely claiming to have met a pre-sale condition, which he secretly satisfied by making the buyers' down payments himself and then having the money returned to him.
- Neder also fraudulently obtained nearly $8 million from a development loan by submitting requests for funds based on false invoices for work that was never performed.
- Neder ultimately defaulted on the loans involved in these schemes.
Procedural Posture:
- Ellis E. Neder, Jr. was indicted in U.S. District Court on multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and filing false income tax returns.
- At trial, Neder objected, but the judge instructed the jury that it did not need to consider the materiality of the false statements for the tax and bank fraud charges, ruling that materiality was a question of law for the court.
- The jury instructions for mail and wire fraud did not include materiality as an element of the offenses.
- The jury convicted Neder, and he was sentenced to 147 months' imprisonment.
- Neder appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals held that failing to submit materiality to the jury on the tax charge was an error, but it was harmless because materiality was not in dispute.
- The appellate court also held that materiality is not an element of the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes, thus affirming the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicts among the circuit courts on both issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
First, is a trial court's failure to submit an element of an offense to the jury an error that is subject to harmless-error analysis? Second, is materiality of the falsehood an essential element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes as to the first issue; Yes as to the second issue. An instructional error that omits an element of the offense from the jury's consideration is not a structural error and is subject to harmless-error analysis. Such an error does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair, unlike the complete denial of counsel or a biased judge. Citing precedents like Pope v. Illinois and Rose v. Clark, the Court found that instructional errors on an element are akin to misdescriptions or conclusive presumptions, which are subject to harmless-error review. The error is harmless if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error, especially where the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence. Here, Neder's failure to report over $5 million in income was so clearly a 'material matter' that the error did not contribute to the verdict. Further, materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes. Although not explicit in the statutes' text, the phrase 'scheme or artifice to defraud' incorporates the settled common-law meaning of fraud, which requires a misrepresentation of a material fact. Congress is presumed to have intended this meaning unless the statute dictates otherwise.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment and in the majority's conclusion that materiality is an element of the fraud statutes. However, he disagreed with the majority's harmless-error reasoning. He argued the error was harmless because the jury's verdict—that Neder knowingly and falsely reported his 'total income'—necessarily included a finding on materiality, as total income is inherently material to tax liability. Stevens criticized the majority's approach of allowing appellate judges to determine what a jury would have found based on uncontested evidence, asserting that this unconstitutionally supplements the jury's findings rather than preserving them.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No as to the first issue; he concurred on the second. Justice Scalia argued that depriving a defendant of a jury determination on any element of a crime is a structural error that can never be harmless when the defendant has made a timely objection. He asserted that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial means the jury must find every element of the crime, and allowing judges to decide an element, even one with overwhelming evidence, usurps the jury's exclusive function and repeats the constitutional violation at the appellate level. He contended that harmless-error analysis should only apply if the jury's other findings are the 'functional equivalent' of a finding on the omitted element, not when an appellate court independently weighs the evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the category of 'structural errors' in criminal trials, establishing that the failure to submit an element to the jury is subject to harmless-error review. This promotes judicial finality by preventing automatic reversals for errors that did not affect the trial's outcome, particularly when evidence on the omitted element is overwhelming. However, as the dissent argues, this empowers appellate courts to make findings constitutionally reserved for the jury, potentially eroding the Sixth Amendment's guarantee. The case also clarified federal fraud statutes by confirming that materiality, a core common-law fraud concept, is an implied element that prosecutors must prove.
Unlock the full brief for Neder v. United States