United States v. Gaudin
515 U.S. 506 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution require that in a federal criminal prosecution, the element of "materiality" must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Respondent Gaudin was involved in a series of real estate transactions financed by loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
- Gaudin would purchase rental properties, obtain inflated appraisals, and then sell them to "straw buyers" (friends or relatives).
- Gaudin arranged FHA-insured mortgage loans for these straw buyers based on the inflated values.
- On HUD/FHA loan documents, Gaudin knowingly made false statements, including inflating the appraised property values.
- On settlement forms, Gaudin falsely represented that the buyer was paying certain closing costs, when in fact Gaudin had arranged to pay all of them.
- As prearranged, Gaudin would then repurchase the properties from the straw buyers and assume the mortgages.
- Ultimately, twenty-nine of these transactions went into default.
Procedural Posture:
- Gaudin was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the district court judge instructed the jury that the government had to prove the statements were material.
- However, the judge further instructed the jury that the issue of materiality was a matter for the court, and he instructed them that the statements at issue were, as a matter of law, material.
- The jury convicted Gaudin on the false statement counts.
- Gaudin (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions, holding that materiality must be decided by the jury.
- The Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc and affirmed the panel's decision, finding a Fifth and Sixth Amendment violation.
- The United States (petitioner) petitioned for, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted, 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:
Does a trial court's refusal to submit the element of materiality to the jury in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 violate a criminal defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and a jury trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. A trial court's refusal to submit the element of materiality to the jury violates a criminal defendant's constitutional rights. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that a jury must determine a defendant's guilt for every element of the crime with which he is charged. Because materiality is an essential element of the offense of making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the defendant has a constitutional right to have a jury decide that question. The Government's argument that materiality is a 'legal' question for the judge, rather than a factual one for the jury, is rejected because materiality is a mixed question of law and fact, which has historically been resolved by juries. Furthermore, there is no consistent historical tradition of treating materiality as an exception to this rule, and the Court's precedent in Sinclair v. United States is repudiated as its reasoning has been eroded by subsequent decisions and is manifestly erroneous.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The Court's judgment is correct because the Government conceded that materiality is an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Given this concession, the constitutional principle that the jury must find guilt on every element is dispositive. However, it is important to note what this opinion does not decide. It does not resolve the existing circuit split over whether materiality is, in fact, an element of every clause of § 1001. The opinion also does not prevent legislatures from defining criminal offenses in ways that might remove materiality from the jury's consideration, for instance by defining it as a sentencing factor. Finally, the Court does not address whether the trial court's error was harmless or plain, as the Government did not raise those arguments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the role of the jury in federal criminal cases by rejecting the long-standing practice in many circuits of treating materiality as a question of law for the judge. It clarifies that any fact treated as an 'element' of an offense, including mixed questions of law and fact, falls within the jury's constitutional purview. The ruling in Gaudin reinforces the principle that the jury serves as the ultimate arbiter of guilt on all components of a crime, thereby limiting judicial power and protecting the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. This precedent ensures that prosecutors must prove every element of their case to a jury of peers, not just to a judge.
