Salinger v. United States

Background

Three people were charged under the federal mail‑fraud statute for a scheme to defraud. Two defendants were acquitted on all counts. One defendant, Salinger, was convicted on a single count that alleged a letter was placed in Sioux City, Iowa, and delivered by mail to Viborg in the District of South Dakota. The defendant sought a direct writ to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds; otherwise the proper path would be review in the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the constitutional questions were substantial enough to justify direct review. It held that the indictment plainly charged a delivery in South Dakota, so the District of South Dakota was the proper place of trial. Arguments that the indictment was too vague were deemed frivolous. Items complained of as hearsay (letters, deposit slips, book entries) were admitted because other evidence linked them to the defendant — for example, letters shown to and answered by him — so they were not treated as forbidden hearsay for him. Withdrawing several theories from the jury did not amend the indictment or eliminate the grand‑jury accusation. Because the constitutional claims were lacking in substance, they did not justify a direct writ to this Court.

Real world impact

The Court sent the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for ordinary review and did not rule on guilt or innocence. The decision makes clear that criminal defendants cannot obtain direct Supreme Court review on weak or fanciful constitutional claims; such challenges should be pursued first in the courts of appeals unless the constitutional issue is truly substantial.