United States v. Coast of Maine Lobster Co., Inc.
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8317, 538 F.2d 899 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a court's supervisory power, a conviction may be vacated and a new trial ordered when a supervising prosecutor makes extrajudicial public statements during a trial that, while not mentioning the specific case, receive prominent publicity and bear a close nexus to the issues the jury is deciding, thereby creating a significant potential for prejudice.
Facts:
- Defendants were on trial for mail and wire fraud, a type of 'white collar crime,' for a scheme involving false promises to ship lobsters.
- During the week-long trial, the supervising United States Attorney, Peter Mills, gave a television interview that was taped on the fourth day of trial.
- In the interview, Mills stated his opinion that individuals who commit 'white collar crimes' receive sentences that are too lenient.
- On the morning the case was to be submitted to the jury, the local newspaper published a front-page story with the banner headline 'Mills: White Collar Criminals Get Off Easy,' accompanied by Mills' picture.
- The defendants' trial was the only federal criminal case being tried in the district at that time, and the jurors were familiar with Mills as the chief prosecutor.
- When questioned by the judge, seven or eight jurors admitted to having seen the front page of the newspaper containing the headline and picture.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants were charged with approximately 20 counts of mail and wire fraud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
- During the jury trial, defendants moved for a mistrial after a newspaper article about the U.S. Attorney's comments was published.
- The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, convicting the defendants.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 prosecutor's public statement during trial, which criticizes lenient sentencing for the same type of crime being tried and receives prominent media coverage seen by the jury, create sufficient potential for prejudice to warrant a new trial under the court's supervisory power?
Opinions:
Majority - Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes. The prosecutor's public statement created a sufficient potential for prejudice to warrant a new trial. While not rising to the level of a constitutional violation, the court exercises its supervisory power to vacate the conviction because the integrity of the trial was needlessly impugned. The statement was made by the supervising prosecutor known to the jury, was timed to receive publicity just before deliberations, was prominently featured on the front page of the newspaper, and concerned the exact 'species' of crime the jury was deciding. This created a potential for prejudice by making jurors feel public pressure, encouraging them to be 'tough,' or making them more willing to convict under the assumption of a lenient sentence. This conduct violates the spirit of ABA standards prohibiting attorneys from making extrajudicial statements to build a 'favorable climate of opinion' during a trial.
Per curiam on rehearing - Per Curiam
Yes, the original holding is reaffirmed and the petition for rehearing is denied. The government's claim that the timing and subject matter of the publicity were beyond the prosecutor's control is rejected. The timing was entirely foreseeable, as an interview on a Thursday would likely be broadcast on Sunday and reported in the newspaper on Monday morning, the day the jury was to receive the case. The prosecutor had full control over his decision to give the interview and the content of his statements. It is precisely because of the freedom of the press that a prosecutor must choose a time to speak that does not interfere with the obligation to ensure a fair trial for defendants.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant prophylactic rule within the First Circuit under the court's supervisory power, aimed at preventing potential jury prejudice from prosecutorial speech. It broadens the scope of prohibited extrajudicial statements beyond those directly referencing a pending case to include general commentary on related legal issues if the timing, prominence, and subject matter align with an ongoing trial. This precedent places a heightened duty of care on prosecutors regarding their public communications, forcing them to consider the foreseeable impact on any pending cases in their district. The four-factor test provides a clear framework for evaluating future claims of this nature, shifting the focus from proven prejudice to the potential for prejudice created by the prosecutor's actions.
