Remmer v. United States

Decision Date08 March 1954
Docket NumberNo. 304,304
CourtU.S. Supreme Court


J. Louis Monarch, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner was convicted by a jury on several counts charging willful evasion of the payment of federal income taxes. A matter admitted by the Government to have been handled by the trial court in a manner that may have been prejudicial to the petitioner, and therefore confessed as error, is presented at the threshold and must be disposed of first.

After the jury had returned its verdict, the petitioner learned for the first time that during the trial a person unnamed had communicated with a certain juror, who afterwards became the jury foreman, and remarked to him that he could profit by bringing in a verdict favorable to the petitioner. The juror reported the incident to the judge, who informed the prosecuting attorneys and advised with them. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was requested to make an investigation and report, which was accordingly done. The F.B.I. report was considered by the judge and prosecutors alone, and they apparently concluded that the statement to the juror was made in jest, and nothing further was done or said about the matter. Neither the judge nor the prosecutors informed the petitioner of the incident, and he and his counsel first learned of the matter by reading of it in the newspapers after the verdict.

The above-stated facts were alleged in a motion for a new trial, together with an allegation that the petitioner was substantially prejudiced, thereby depriving him of a fair trial, and a request for a hearing to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident and its effect on the jury.* A supporting affidavit of the petitioner's attorneys recited the alleged occurrences and stated that if they had known of the incident they would have moved for a mistrial and requested that the juror in question be replaced by an alternate juror. Two newspaper articles reporting the incident were attached to the affidavit. The Government did not file answering affidavits. The District Court, without holding the requested hearing, denied the motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had not abused its discretion, since the petitioner had shown no prejudice to him. 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 277, 291. The case is here on writ of certiorari. 346 U.S. 884, 74 S.Ct. 144.

In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1596 cases
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 15, 2009
    ...added; United States v. Angulo (9th Cir.1993) 4 F.3d 843, 847 ["in determining whether a hearing [under Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654] must be held, the court must consider the content of the allegations, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct or......
  • State v. Osimanti, No. 18311.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 9, 2010 law, observing that, in State v. Rodriguez, 210 Conn. 315, 325-26, 554 A.2d 1080 (1989), we followed Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), and stated that, "[w]here an accused makes a plausible claim that his constitutional right to a fair trial......
  • People v. Avila
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 1967
    ...Failure to make such proof will call for a new trial. This procedure is similar to that called for in Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654. Should the Government sustain its burden in these respects, then appellant should be denied relief. For if the Government ......
  • People v. Goldberg
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1984
    ..."It is well-settled that a presumption of prejudice arises from any juror misconduct.... In Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229, [74 S.Ct. 450, 451, 98 L.Ed. 654], the United States Supreme Court stated: 'In a criminal case, any private communication, contact or tampering, dire......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Why are non-unanimous (court-martial) guilty verdicts still alive after ramos?
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...2003) (discussing need for protecting panel from external inquiry into its deliberative process). 292. See Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954). 293. See Uniform Code of Military Justice art. 37(a), 10 U.S.C. § 837(a)(1); see also United States v. Bess, 80 M.J. 1, 6–8 (2020) (e......
  • Holding Juries Accountable: Assessing the Right to a Competent and Unimpaired Jury in Light of Tanner and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 35-4, October 2022
    • October 1, 2022
    ...jurors’ conf‌licts of interest as examples of external matters). For other examples of external inf‌luences, see Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 228–29 (1954) (admitting post-verdict juror testimony about bribing of jurors); Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 364–65 (1966) (admitting p......
  • Brecht v. Abrahamson: harmful error in habeas corpus law.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 84 No. 4, January 1994
    • December 22, 1994
    ...supra note *, ch. 20. (174) See id. [subsections] 19.3-19.5. (175) See id. [sections] 20.3. (176) See, e.g., Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229-30 (1954) (discussed in United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1781 (1993)) (because sending "an F.B.I. agent in the midst of a trial to ......
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 2, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...the best of what a legal scholar and truly other-regarding person can be. He is missed. (1.) Remmer v. United States (Remmer I), 347 U.S. 227, 229 (2.) See Bennett L. Gershman, Contaminating the Verdict: The Problem of Juror Misconduct, 50 S.D. L. Rev. 322, 323-24 (2005), which explains: "D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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