Remmer v. United States
347 U.S. 227 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Any private communication, contact, or tampering with a juror during a trial about the matter pending is presumptively prejudicial, and the burden rests heavily on the government to establish at a hearing, with the defendant present, that such contact was harmless.
Facts:
- The petitioner was on trial for willful evasion of federal income taxes.
- During the trial, an unnamed person contacted a juror and remarked that the juror could profit by bringing in a verdict favorable to the petitioner.
- The juror, who later became the jury foreman, promptly reported the incident to the trial judge.
- The judge informed the prosecutors but did not inform the petitioner or his counsel.
- The judge and prosecutors requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) to investigate the juror regarding the communication.
- The judge and prosecutors reviewed the F.B.I. report and concluded the comment was made in jest, taking no further action.
- The petitioner and his counsel only learned of the incident and the subsequent investigation by reading newspaper articles after the jury had returned a guilty verdict.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner was convicted by a jury in a federal District Court on several counts of tax evasion.
- After the verdict, the petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, alleging improper juror contact was discovered.
- The District Court denied the motion for a new trial without holding a hearing on the matter.
- The petitioner (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion, ruling the petitioner had not shown prejudice.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment 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 trial court's ex parte investigation of an improper communication with a juror, conducted without notifying the defendant or holding a hearing, deprive the defendant of the right to a fair trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Minton
Yes. A trial court's ex parte handling of an unauthorized juror communication is improper and necessitates a hearing with all parties present. Any private communication with a juror during a trial is deemed presumptively prejudicial. This presumption places a heavy burden on the government to prove, at a hearing with notice to the defendant, that the contact was harmless. The trial court erred by deciding the matter ex parte with only the prosecutors, based on an F.B.I. report. The very act of having the F.B.I. investigate a sitting juror is inherently intimidating and jeopardizes the integrity of the jury process. A defendant cannot be expected to prove prejudice without knowing what transpired; therefore, the proper procedure is for the court to hold a full hearing with all interested parties to determine the circumstances, the impact on the juror, and whether the incident was prejudicial.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical procedural safeguard for a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. It creates what is now known as a 'Remmer hearing,' mandating an adversarial hearing whenever a credible allegation of improper juror contact arises. The ruling significantly shifts the burden of proof to the government to demonstrate the contact was harmless, rather than requiring the defendant to prove prejudice. This protects the integrity of jury deliberations from secret, outside influences and ensures transparency in how trial courts handle such serious allegations.
Unlock the full brief for Remmer v. United States