Quercia v. United States
289 U.S. 466 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a federal jury trial, a judge's privilege to comment on the evidence is limited; the judge may not assume the role of a witness by adding personal testimony or presenting unsubstantiated theories as fact, nor may they make prejudicial statements that usurp the jury's sole function of determining witness credibility.
Facts:
- The U.S. government prosecuted Quercia for violating the Narcotic Act.
- At trial, agents of the government testified against Quercia.
- Quercia testified in his own defense.
- Quercia made a general denial of all charges brought against him.
- During his testimony on the witness stand, Quercia wiped his hands.
Procedural Posture:
- Quercia was prosecuted by the United States in a federal trial court for violating the Narcotic Act.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, convicting Quercia.
- Quercia, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Quercia's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit 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 federal trial judge's instruction to the jury, stating that the defendant's act of wiping his hands is 'almost always an indication of lying' and that the judge believes the defendant's entire testimony is a 'lie,' exceed the bounds of permissible judicial comment and constitute prejudicial error?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
Yes. The judge's comments exceeded the bounds of fair comment and constituted prejudicial error. While a federal judge is not a mere moderator and may comment on the evidence to assist the jury, this privilege has inherent limitations. The judge may not distort the evidence, add to it, or assume the role of a witness. In this case, the judge introduced a 'fact' not in evidence—that wiping one's hands is an indication of lying—based on his own personal experience, thereby becoming a witness against the accused. Furthermore, his sweeping denunciation that every word the defendant said was a lie was a prejudicial statement that usurped the jury's exclusive role as the arbiter of credibility. The subsequent instruction that the jury was not bound by his opinion could not cure the profound prejudice created by such a definitive and improperly grounded assertion from the bench.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between the roles of the judge and the jury in a federal trial. It clarifies that a judge's common law power to comment on evidence is not unlimited and must not cross the line into testifying or directing the jury's credibility determinations. The case serves as a foundational precedent for limiting judicial commentary, ensuring that a defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury is not compromised by the judge's personal beliefs or theories. It protects the jury's function as the sole finder of fact and weigher of witness credibility.
Unlock the full brief for Quercia v. United States