Rogers v. United States
422 US 35, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 77, 45 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's right to be present at every stage of the trial, guaranteed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, is violated when a trial judge responds to a jury's inquiry ex parte, and such an error is not harmless if the communication has the potential to improperly influence the jury's verdict.
Facts:
- George Rogers, an unemployed carpenter with a history of alcoholism, was behaving loudly and erratically in a Holiday Inn coffee shop in Shreveport, Louisiana.
- During his outbursts, Rogers told several customers and waitresses that he was going to Washington D.C. to "whip Nixon's ass" or to "kill him in order to save the United States."
- Local police were called to remove Rogers from the premises.
- When an officer arrived and asked Rogers if he had threatened the President, Rogers confirmed his dislike for the President's trip to China and stated, "I'm going to Washington and I'm going to beat his ass off. Better yet, I will go kill him."
- The local police reported the incident to the Secret Service, which led to Rogers's arrest on a federal warrant for threatening the President.
Procedural Posture:
- Rogers was charged in a five-count indictment with making oral threats against the President of the United States.
- Following a trial in U.S. District Court, a jury convicted Rogers on all five counts.
- Rogers appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Rogers's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did a trial judge's ex parte communication to a deliberating jury, which unconditionally accepted the jury's proposal to return a guilty verdict with a recommendation for mercy, violate the defendant's right to be present at all stages of the trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 and require reversal of the conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the ex parte communication violated Rule 43 and requires reversal. A trial judge's ex parte communication with a deliberating jury violates a criminal defendant's right under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 to be present at every stage of the trial. The Court reasoned that both precedent and Rule 43 make it clear that a jury's message must be answered in open court with the defendant and counsel present. Here, the judge's private response to the jury's note asking if it could recommend 'extreme mercy' was a procedural error. This error was not harmless because the nature of the communication was prejudicial. The judge should have, at minimum, instructed the jury that its recommendation was not binding and that sentencing was not its concern. The fact that the jury, previously deliberating for two hours, returned a guilty verdict within five minutes of the judge's affirmative response strongly suggests the communication induced a compromise verdict among jurors who were hesitant to convict.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Marshall
Justice Marshall agrees with the reversal but would have decided the case on the substantive issue of what constitutes a 'threat' under the statute. He argued that the Court should have addressed the issue it granted certiorari to resolve: the mental state required for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). The trial court applied an 'objective' standard, asking whether a reasonable person would perceive the statement as a threat. Justice Marshall advocated for a narrower, 'subjective' standard requiring the government to prove the defendant actually intended his statement to be taken as a serious threat. This subjective standard, he argued, is more consistent with the legislative history of the statute and is necessary to protect constitutionally protected, albeit crude, political speech from being criminalized.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the procedural safeguard that a defendant and their counsel must be present for all trial proceedings, particularly any communication between the judge and a deliberating jury. It establishes that an ex parte communication regarding a verdict and sentencing recommendation is presumptively prejudicial, especially when it appears to induce a previously deadlocked jury to reach a verdict. By reversing on this procedural ground, the Court avoided setting a precedent on the more controversial First Amendment issue of what constitutes a 'true threat' under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a), leaving a circuit split on that question unresolved. The case serves as a crucial reminder to trial judges of the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural rules in jury communications.
