Rosen v. United States
245 U.S. 467 (1918)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior felony conviction does not render a witness incompetent to testify in a federal criminal trial; rather, it goes to the witness's credibility. Additionally, a privately owned receptacle used for mail delivery is an 'authorized depository for mail matter' if designated as such by a Post Office Department regulation, bringing it under the protection of federal criminal law.
Facts:
- Rosen and Wagner were indicted for conspiring with Broder to buy and receive checks and letters.
- Broder had previously been convicted of forgery in New York, sentenced, and had served his sentence.
- The letters central to the conspiracy were stolen from mailboxes.
- The mailboxes were privately owned by tenants and placed in the halls of buildings where they had their places of business.
- The boxes bore the names of the owners and were not locked.
- United States mail carriers deposited mail into these boxes for the tenants.
- The mail was stolen from these boxes after being deposited by the carriers but before being retrieved by the tenants.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosen and Wagner were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for conspiracy to receive stolen mail.
- At trial, the defendants objected to the testimony of their co-conspirator, Broder, on the grounds that his prior felony conviction for forgery made him an incompetent witness. The trial court overruled the objection.
- The defendants also moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing that the private mailboxes were not 'authorized depositories for mail matter' under the federal statute. The trial court denied the motion.
- Following their convictions, Rosen and Wagner appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and the rulings of the District Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted 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 witness's prior conviction for forgery render them incompetent to testify in a federal criminal trial, and are privately-owned, unlocked letter boxes in building hallways considered 'authorized depositories for mail matter' under federal law, making theft therefrom a federal crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clarke
No to the first question, and yes to the second. A witness's prior conviction for a felony does not render them incompetent to testify in federal court, and privately owned letterboxes designated by the Post Office are considered authorized mail depositories. The court rejects the antiquated common-law rule of 1789 that disqualified witnesses with felony convictions, adopting the modern view that such matters should affect credibility, not competency, leaving the determination of a witness's truthfulness to the jury. Following the reasoning in Benson v. United States, the court holds that federal evidence rules should be guided by 'general authority and sound reason,' which favors hearing testimony rather than excluding it. Regarding the mailboxes, the court finds that a Post Office Department regulation, lawfully promulgated under statutory authority, designated such receptacles as 'authorized depositories.' This regulation has the force of law, extending federal protection over the mail until it reaches the addressee's manual possession, meaning theft from these boxes is a federal offense.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
Yes, a witness's prior conviction should render them incompetent. The dissent argues that the court should adhere to the established rule from United States v. Reid and Logan v. United States, which held that witness competency in federal criminal trials is governed by the common law of the states as it existed in 1789. The dissent believes that the decision in Benson v. United States did not modify this rule and that the prior forgery conviction should have disqualified the witness from testifying.
Analysis:
This decision marks a pivotal modernization of federal evidence law, decisively breaking from the 129-year-old precedent that tied witness competency to 18th-century common law. By ruling that a witness's criminal past goes to credibility rather than competency, the Court favored the jury's role in weighing evidence and significantly broadened the scope of admissible testimony. Furthermore, the ruling solidified the administrative power of executive departments, confirming that a Post Office regulation can define the scope of a federal criminal statute. This extends federal protection to mail beyond government-owned property, covering the final leg of its journey into private mail receptacles.
Unlock the full brief for Rosen v. United States