United States v. Norris

Background

Alfred E. Norris, a New York investment banker, was charged with conspiring to receive shipments of intoxicating liquor sent from Philadelphia in violation of the National Prohibition Act. Joel D. Kerper ran a Philadelphia business selling and shipping rye whiskey by prepaid express. Kerper pleaded guilty. Norris entered a no-contest plea. At sentencing a written stipulation described repeated phone orders by Norris, prepaid shipments from Kerper, and payments by Norris for whiskey bought for his own use.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the post-plea stipulation could be treated as evidence to challenge Norris’s guilt despite his no-contest plea. The Justices held that once Norris entered the no-contest plea, the court’s role was limited to deciding punishment. A no-contest plea, for the purposes of the case, operates like a guilty plea and prevents the defendant from using a later stipulation to create an issue of guilt. The Court also emphasized that nothing may be added to an indictment without the grand jury’s concurrence, and that if Norris wanted to contest the facts he should have withdrawn his plea and pleaded not guilty.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the $200 fine against Norris, and reversed the court of appeals. The opinion makes clear that defendants who enter no-contest pleas cannot later rely on post-plea stipulations to avoid conviction. The Court did not decide, and expressly declined to decide, whether the stipulated facts alone would constitute a conspiracy if they had been open to full litigation.