Duke v. United States
The Supreme Court answered two certified questions from a lower appeals court, ruling that a person could be charged by a prosecutor's information rather than a grand jury indictment for a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine, so long as the punishment wasn't the kind reserved for more serious 'infamous' crimes.
The case involved a man convicted of trying to influence a federal juror, and the Court's answer confirmed that a 1930 law creating a category of very minor 'petty offenses' did not take away prosecutors' long-standing power to charge other misdemeanors this way.
“The addition of the words that “such petty offenses may be prosecuted upon information or complaint” did not work a change of the then well-settled rule that any mis *495 demeanor not involving infamous punishment might be prosecuted by information instead of by indictment.”
Explaining why the 1930 petty-offense amendment didn't limit prosecution by information for other misdemeanors.
How it got here: A federal appeals court, divided on the legal question, certified two questions about prosecution by information to the Supreme Court for guidance.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A man was convicted after being charged by a written accusation (an information) filed by a federal prosecutor, rather than by a grand jury indictment, for trying to influence a federal juror in violation of a criminal code section aimed at protecting jury independence. He appealed, arguing that a 1930 amendment to the criminal code limited prosecution by information to only the most minor offenses.
The question before the Court
Could someone be charged by a prosecutor's written accusation, instead of a grand jury indictment, for a minor crime carrying up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine?
Why it matters
The ruling meant federal prosecutors did not need a grand jury indictment to charge people with a wide range of misdemeanors carrying penalties up to six months in jail or a $500-plus fine, saving time and resources in minor federal criminal cases while still requiring indictments only for the most serious, "infamous" offenses.
What changes now
Because this was an answer to certified questions rather than a full appeal, the underlying case returns to the lower appeals court, which will apply the Supreme Court's answers — that both questions are answered 'Yes' — to resolve the man's appeal of his conviction. The ruling clarified the general rule for similar misdemeanor prosecutions nationwide, but did not otherwise decide the merits of his conviction.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Sutherland (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court examined the original statute dividing federal crimes into felonies and misdemeanors, noting that under long-settled practice, any misdemeanor not carrying 'infamous' punishment (the kind requiring hard labor or long imprisonment) could be prosecuted by information rather than grand jury indictment.
- The Court then considered a 1930 amendment adding a new category called 'petty offenses' — very minor crimes punishable by no more than six months without hard labor or a $500 fine — which the amendment said could be prosecuted by information or complaint.
- The Court reasoned that this amendment's purpose was to create a smaller subclass of misdemeanors, meant to work alongside other proposed legislation for trial before United States Commissioners, not to strip away the existing power to prosecute other, more serious misdemeanors by information.
- Because the amendment used only affirmative language authorizing information for petty offenses, without any language taking away the pre-existing rule for other misdemeanors, the Court concluded the older, broader rule survived unchanged.
- Applying this to the case at hand, the Court found the juror-influence offense was a misdemeanor not subject to infamous punishment, so it fell within the broader rule and could properly be prosecuted by information even though it exceeded the petty-offense penalty thresholds.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Thorm v. United States (59 F. (2d) 419)
The Court relied on this earlier decision as correctly holding the petty-offense proviso didn't limit prosecution by information.