Bruno v. United States

Decision Date04 December 1939
Docket NumberNo. 300,300
Citation308 U.S. 287,60 S.Ct. 198,84 L.Ed. 257
PartiesBRUNO v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Samuel B. Wasserman and M. Michael Edelstein, both of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. O. John Rogge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 288-290 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

In affirming the conviction of Jerry Bruno, who, with eighty-seven others, was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dealt with an important question in the administration of federal criminal justice in such a way as to lead us to grant certiorari, 308 U.S. 536, 60 S.Ct. 112, 84 L.Ed. —-.

Some of Bruno's co-defendants took the witness-stand. He did not. The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury regarding the attitude to be observed by them towards the accused as a witness: 'It is the privilege of a defendant to testify as a witness if, and only when, he so elects; and when he does testify his credibility is to be determined in the light of his interest, which usually is greater than that of any other witness, and is therefore a matter which may seriously affect the credence that shall be given to his testimony.'

Bruno requested this additional instruction: 'The failure of any defendant to take the witness stand and testify in his own behalf, does not create any presumption against him; the jury is charged that it must not permit that fact to weigh in the slightest degree against any such defendant, nor should this fact enter into the discussions or deliberations of the jury in any manner.'

The trial judge declined this request, saying 'I feel that I've already covered that.' The exception to this denial having been saved, the Circuit Court of Appeals found no error in the refusal, although confessing that the guidance which had been given the jury 'was not the equivalent of what the defendant had requested', United States v. Bruno, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 921, 923. By this, we take it, the court below meant that the topic on which Bruno proffered an instruction had not been charged at all.

Therefore, the narrow question before us is whether in these circumstances Bruno had the indefeasible right to have the jury told in substance what he asked the judge to tell it. The issue is determined by a proper application of the Act of March 16, 1878, 20 Stat. 30, now 28 U.S.C.A. § 632, 28 U.S.C.A. § 632.1

That Act freed the accused in a federal prosecution from his common law disability as a witness. But Congress coupled his privilege to be a witness with the right to have a failure to exercise the privilege not tell against him. The accused could 'at his own request but not otherwise, be a competent witness. And his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him.' Such was the command of the law-makers. The only way Congress could provide that abstention from testifying should not tell against an accused was by an implied direction to judges to exercise their traditional duty in guiding the jury by indicating the considerations relevant to the latter's verdict on the facts. Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 715, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343. By legislating against the creation of any 'presumption' from a failure to testify, Congress could not have meant to legislate against the psychological operation of the jury's mind. It laid down canons of judicial administration for the trial judge to the extent that his instructions to the jury, certainly when appropriately invoked, might affect the behavior of jurors. Concededly the charge requested by Bruno was correct. The Act of March 16, 1878, gave him the right to invoke it.

A subsidiary question remains for determination. It derives from the Act of February 26, 1919, 40 Stat. 1181, 28 U.S.C. § 391, 28 U.S.C.A. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
278 cases
  • People v. Ross
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1967
    ...of trials and with the formalities and minutiae of procedure from touching the merits of a verdict.' (Bruno v. United States, supra, 308 U.S. 287, 293--294, 60 S.Ct. 198, 200, 84 L.Ed. 257.) 'The 'technical errors' against which Congress protected jury verdicts are of the kind which led som......
  • People v. Brady
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 1969
    ...law requires that an instruction substantially similar to CALJIC 51 (Rerev.) be given if defendant requests it. (Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 60 S.Ct. 198, 84 L.Ed. 257; 18 U.S.C.A. § 3481.) Since it is reversible error to deny defendant's request for such an instruction, federal c......
  • People v. Modesto
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1965
    ...interpreted to exclude any comment. (Wilson v. United States, 149 U.S. 60, 65, 13 S.Ct. 765, 37 L.Ed. 650; Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 292-293, 60 S.Ct. 198, 84 L.Ed. 257; Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 50, fn. 6, 67 S.Ct. 1672.) Although it is the federal ......
  • State v. Ruocco
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 6, 2016
    ...of the statute, coupled with the fundamental importance of the right it protects," but relying on Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 294, 60 S. Ct. 198, 84 L. Ed. 257 [1939], which predated modern harmless error jurisprudence). In contrast to the unpersuasive decisions of those courts fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • "incorporation" of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: the View from the States
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 84, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...itself. That holding had been anticipated by dicta in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 50 n.6 (1947), and Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 294 (1939). 188. 380 U.S. 609 (1965), rev'gAdamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947). 189. For critical commentary, see Henry J. Friendly, The B......
  • Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1980-1981
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 10-9, September 1981
    • Invalid date
    ...giving of a "no inference" instruction over defense counsel's objection does not violate the Fifth Amendment); and Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287 (1939) (as a question of federal statutory law, a defendant is entitled to a "no inference" instruction). The majority declared that the Co......
  • Conditional Rules in Criminal Procedure: Alice in Wonderland Meets the Constitution
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 26-2, December 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...errors occurring in a criminal trial could ever be harmless."). In a case decided five years after Snyder, Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287 (1939), the Court gave a sense of the type of problem for which it thought harmless error was appropriate: "Suffice it to indicate, what every stud......
  • B. Conspiracy
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter IV Anticipatory Offenses and Parties to Criminal Activity
    • Invalid date
    ...the retailers. The classic example of such a conspiracy is United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1939), reversed on other grounds, 308 U.S. 287 (1939). Even though there was no evidence of communication between the smugglers and the retailers, the knowledge of each of the existence ......

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