438 U.S. 422 (1978), 76-1560, United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

Docket NºNo. 76-1560
Citation438 U.S. 422, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854
Party NameUnited States v. United States Gypsum Co.
Case DateJune 29, 1978
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 422

438 U.S. 422 (1978)

98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854

United States

v.

United States Gypsum Co.

No. 76-1560

United States Supreme Court

June 29, 1978

Argued March 1, 1978

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Several major gypsum board manufacturers and various of their officials were indicted for violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act by allegedly engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy. One of the types of actions allegedly taken in formulating and effectuating the conspiracy was interseller price verification, i.e., the practice of telephoning a competing manufacturer to determine the price being currently offered on gypsum board to a specific customer. After some of the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and were sentenced, the remaining defendants were convicted after a trial of some 19 weeks. The Government's case focused on the interseller price verification charge, which the defendants defended on the ground that the price information exchanges were to enable them to take advantage of the "meeting competition" defense contained in § 2(b) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (which permits a seller to rebut a prima facie price discrimination charge by showing that a lower price to a purchaser was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor). On the verification issue, tho trial judge charged the jury that, if the price information exchanges were found to have been undertaken in good faith to comply with the Robinson-Patman Act, verification alone would not suffice to establish an illegal price-fixing agreement, but that, if the jury found that the effect of verification was to fix prices, then the parties would be presumed, as a matter of law, to have intended that result. The judge further charged that, since only a single conspiracy was alleged, liability could only be predicated on the knowing involvement of each defendant, considered individually, in the conspiracy alleged, the judge having refused the defendants' requested charge directing the jury to determine what kind of agreement, if any, existed as to each defendant before any could be found to be a member of the conspiracy. With respect to the defendants' evidence as to withdrawal from the conspiracy, the judge instructed the jury that withdrawal had to be established by either affirmative notice to every other member of the conspiracy or by disclosure of the illegal enterprise to law enforcement officials. The judge

Page 423

refused the defendants' requested instruction that vigorous price competition during the period in question could also be considered as evidence of abandonment of the conspiracy. After all the testimony had been presented, the jurors were sequestered for deliberation, and apparently disagreement among them arose. After approximately seven days of deliberations, the foreman of the jury informed the judge that he wanted to discuss the jury's condition, and this resulted, with the parties' consent, in an ex parte meeting between the judge and the foreman. Most of the discussion at the meeting involved the jurors' deteriorating health, but the foreman also referred to the jury's deadlock; there followed an exchange strongly suggesting that the foreman may have carried away from the meeting the impression that the judge wanted a verdict "one way or the other." The jury rendered its guilty verdict the following morning. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions on various grounds, holding, inter alia, that verification of price concessions with competitors for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the "meeting competition" defense of § 2(b) constitutes a "controlling circumstance" precluding liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, and thus an instruction allowing the jury to ignore the defendants' purpose in engaging in the alleged misconduct could not be sustained.

Held:

1. A defendant's state of mind or intent is an element of a criminal antitrust offense which must be established by evidence and inferences drawn therefrom, and cannot be taken from the trier of fact through reliance on a legal presumption of wrongful intent from proof of an effect on prices. Since the trial judge's instruction on the verification issue had this prohibited effect, it was improper. Pp. 434-446.

(a) The Sherman Act is not to be construed as mandating a regime of strict liability crimes; rather, the criminal offenses defined therein are to be construed as including intent as an element. Pp. 436-443.

(b) Action undertaken with knowledge of its probable consequences and having the requisite anticompetitive effects can be a sufficient predicate for a finding of criminal liability under the antitrust laws. Where carefully planned and calculated conduct is being scrutinized in the context of a criminal prosecution, the perpetrator's knowledge of the anticipated consequences is a sufficient predicate for a finding of criminal intent. Pp. 443-446.

2. A good faith belief, rather than an absolute certainty, that a price concession is being offered to meet an equally low price offered by a competitor suffices to invoke the § 2(b) defense; exchanges of price information, even when putatively for the purpose of Robinson-Patman Act compliance, must remain subject to close scrutiny under the Sherman

Page 424

Act. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in treating interseller price verification even as a limited "controlling circumstance" exception precluding Sherman Act liability. Pp. 447-459.

3. The ex parte meeting between the trial judge and the jury foreman was improper, and the Court of Appeals would have been justified in reversing the convictions solely because of the risk that the foreman believed the judge was insisting on a dispositive verdict. Such a meeting is pregnant with possibilities for error, since it is difficult to contain, much less to anticipate, the direction the conversation will take at such a meeting, any occasion which leads to communication with the whole jury panel through one juror inevitably risks innocent misstatements of the law and misinterpretations despite the undisputed good faith of the participants, and the absence of counsel from the meeting aggravates the problems of having one juror serve as a conduit for communication with the whole panel. Here the meeting was allowed to drift into a supplemental instruction relating to the jury's obligation to reach a verdict, and counsel were denied any chance to correct whatever mistaken impression the foreman might have taken from the meeting. Pp. 459-462.

4. The trial judge's charge concerning participation in the conspiracy, although perhaps not completely clear, was sufficient, but his charge on withdrawal from the conspiracy was erroneous, since it limited the jury's consideration to only two circumscribed and arguably impractical methods of demonstrating withdrawal, rather than permitting consideration of any affirmative acts inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach coconspirators. Pp. 462-465.

550 F.2d 115, affirmed.

BURGER, C J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and WHITE, JJ., joined; in all but Part IV of which STEWART, J., joined; in Parts I, II, V, and a portion of Part III of which POWELL, J., joined; in Part I and a portion of Part V of which REHNQUIST, J., joined; and in all but Part II of which STEVENS, J., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 469. REHNQUIST, J., post, p. 471, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 474, filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. BLACKMUN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Page 426

BURGER, J., lead opinion

[98 S.Ct. 2868] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the following questions: (a) whether intent is an element of a criminal antitrust offense; (b) whether an exchange of price information for purposes of compliance with the Robinson-Patman Act is exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny; (c) the adequacy of jury instructions on membership in and withdrawal from the alleged conspiracy; and (d) the propriety of an ex parte meeting between the trial judge and the foreman of the jury.

I

Gypsum board, a laminated type of wallboard composed of paper, vinyl, or other specially treated coverings over a gypsum core, has in the last 30 years substantially replaced wet plaster as the primary component of interior walls and ceilings in residential and commercial construction. The product is essentially fungible; differences in price, credit terms, and delivery services largely dictate the purchasers' choice between competing suppliers. Overall demand, however, is governed by the level of construction activity, and is only marginally affected by price fluctuations.

The gypsum board industry is highly concentrated, with the number of producers ranging from 9 to 15 in the period 1960-1973. The eight largest companies accounted for some 94% of the national sales, with the seven "single-plant producers"1 accounting for the remaining 6%. Most of the major producers and a large number of the single-plant producers are members of the Gypsum Association, which, since 1930, has served as a trade association of gypsum board manufacturers.

Page 427

A

Beginning in 1966, the Justice Department, as well as the Federal Trade Commission, became involved in investigations into possible antitrust violations in the gypsum board industry. In 1971, a grand jury was empaneled and the investigation continued for an additional 28 months. In late 1973, an indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania charging six major manufacturers and various of their corporate officials with violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1125 practice notes
  • 54 F.Supp.3d 382 (E.D.Pa. 2014), 06-0620, In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 14, 2014
    ...specific intent is not required in order to establish Page 392 a civil violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. See U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436 n.13, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (noting that while " a defendant's state of mind or intent is an element of a criminal a......
  • 65 M.J. 501 (Army Crim.App. 2007), ARMY 20020193, United States v. Axelson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • April 30, 2007
    ...certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 445, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks [10] Rule for Courts-Martial 916(k)(2) and discussion. "The ......
  • 66 M.J. 39 (U.S. Armed Forces 2008), 06-0870, United States v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • February 25, 2008
    ...of “background rules of the common law." Staples, 511 U.S. at 605, 114 S.Ct. 1793 (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436-37, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) ). A bedrock precept and assumption of the criminal law is that “an injury can amount to a cri......
  • State v. Genson, 121820 KSCA, 121, 014
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • December 18, 2020
    ...140 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 222-223 (1972)." United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 437-38, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). Genson pushes this analysis further by contending that the United States Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
991 cases
  • 54 F.Supp.3d 382 (E.D.Pa. 2014), 06-0620, In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 14, 2014
    ...specific intent is not required in order to establish Page 392 a civil violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. See U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436 n.13, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (noting that while " a defendant's state of mind or intent is an element of a criminal a......
  • 65 M.J. 501 (Army Crim.App. 2007), ARMY 20020193, United States v. Axelson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • April 30, 2007
    ...certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 445, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks [10] Rule for Courts-Martial 916(k)(2) and discussion. "The ......
  • 66 M.J. 39 (U.S. Armed Forces 2008), 06-0870, United States v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Military Appeals
    • February 25, 2008
    ...of “background rules of the common law." Staples, 511 U.S. at 605, 114 S.Ct. 1793 (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436-37, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) ). A bedrock precept and assumption of the criminal law is that “an injury can amount to a cri......
  • State v. Genson, 121820 KSCA, 121, 014
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • December 18, 2020
    ...140 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 222-223 (1972)." United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 437-38, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). Genson pushes this analysis further by contending that the United States Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 firm's commentaries
  • Skadden Energy Law Handbook - Third Edition (Dec. 2015)
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • December 14, 2015
    ...Distribs., Inc. v. Brannan, 201 F.2d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 1953); Cargill, 452 F.2d at 1162, 1163. 468 See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 442, 445 (1978) (antitrust); G. H. Miller & Co. v. United States, 260 F.2d 286, 290 (7th Cir. 1958) (CEA). See III JOHNSON, DERIVATIVES REGU......
  • Skadden Energy Law Handbook - 2014
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 11, 2014
    ...Distribs., Inc. v. Brannan, 201 F.2d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 1953); Cargill, 452 F.2d at 1162, 1163. 35 See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 442, 445 (1978) (antitrust); G. H. Miller & Co. v. United States, 260 F.2d 286, 290 (7th Cir. 1958) (CEA). See III JOHNSON, DERIVATIVES REGUL......
  • "Skadden Energy Law Handbook: Fourth Edition (November 2016)"
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 18, 2016
    ...Distribs., Inc. v. Brannan, 201 F.2d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 1953); Cargill, 452 F.2d at 1162, 1163. 35 See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 442, 445 (1978) (antitrust); G. H. Miller & Co. v. United States, 260 F.2d 286, 290 (7th Cir. 1958) (CEA). See III Johnson, Derivatives Regul......
  • Clearance: Proskauer's Quarterly Antitrust Update - Winter 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 18, 2013
    ...Enterprises, Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 189 (7th Cir. 1985)). Broadcast Music, 441 U.S. at 20 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 441 n.16 (1978)). In Broadcast Music, the Supreme Court upheld a "literal" price fixing arrangement among composers on the groun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
116 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 48 Nbr. 2, March 2011
    • March 22, 2011
    ...eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title7/ant00007.htm (last visited Nov. 7, 2010). (12.) See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 435 (1978) (holding that proof of the defendant's state of mind or intent is an element of a criminal antitrust offense). In U.S. Gypsum Co., the Court hel......
  • Corporate criminal liability.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 35 Nbr. 3, March 1998
    • March 22, 1998
    ...of its agents if their conduct is within scope of their actual or apparent authority). But see United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 434-36 (1978) (noting that Sherman Act violations require corporate intent). Actus rea, or the "guilty act," is defined as a &quo......
  • Federal criminal conspiracy.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 51 Nbr. 4, September 2014
    • September 22, 2014
    ...for the first time on appeal). (85.) United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1232 (7th Cir. 1981). (86.) United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464-65 (1978); United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182, 192 (2d Cir. 2002). (8......
  • The Roberts Court and Supreme Court's New Antitrust Law for the Global Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Economy in a “Perfect Storm” of Danger—And Opportunity
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 54-1, March 2009
    • March 1, 2009
    ...71 (3d. ed.2007).122 KENNETH BROUN, MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 585, 573 (6th ed. 2006).Leading cases include United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978)and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979). ATB Spring 2009 article by: Weller 06-25-2009 that “conclusively” presumed the crimina......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 12, 2009
    • November 4, 2009
    ...at least in some circumstances, having abundant data of that sort can be pro- competitive. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978); see also U.S. Dep't of Justice and Federal Trade Statement of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care, Statement 6 (``Provider P......
  • Prohibited trade practices: Virginia Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers,
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 25, 2004
    • August 25, 2004
    ...economic efficiency and render markets more, rather than less, competitive.' '' (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 441 n. 16 \5\ PolyGram Holdings, slip op. at 29. \6\ Id. \7\ Id. at 30-31. \8\ Id. at 31-32. \9\ Id. at 33, fn. 44. A Restriction on Price Advert......
  • Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments and Services
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 29, 2014
    • September 29, 2014
    ...1990). \18\ Falls City Industries v. Vanco Beverage, 460 U.S. 428, 451 (1983). \19\ Id. at 441, quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 \20\ Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. FTC, 440 U.S. 69, 82 (1979), quoting FTC v. A.E. Staley Mfg., 324 U.S. 746, 759-60 (1945) (discussing ......
  • Admonition of Registrant: Mr. Checkout North Texas
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 27, 2010
    • January 18, 2010
    ...the defendant knew that the items at issue are likely to be used with illegal drugs.'') (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 444 (``knowledge of `probable consequences' sufficient for conviction'')). The Government produced absolutely no evidence that Mr. Naulty ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT