Bollenbach v. United States

Background

A man was tried for transporting stolen securities across State lines and for conspiring to do so. The bonds were stolen in Minneapolis and shortly afterward showed up in New York, where the defendant helped dispose of them. After the jury reported being hopelessly deadlocked, it asked questions. The judge answered with a statement that possession shortly after theft “raises a presumption” the possessor was the thief and had transported the goods, and the jury convicted on the conspiracy count minutes later.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the conviction could stand given the judge’s last-minute instruction. It found the “presumption” instruction misleading and plainly wrong for the question asked. Because the jury had been deadlocked for hours and reached a guilty verdict only minutes after the misdirection, the Court could not treat the error as harmless. The Court also rejected attempts to uphold the conviction on a theory (accessory after the fact) that was not charged at trial.

Real world impact

The ruling emphasizes that trial judges must answer jury questions carefully and clearly, especially when jurors express confusion. Convictions cannot rest on equivocal or incorrect legal propositions given as last-minute guidance. Appellate courts may not substitute their own factual confidence for proper jury procedures.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting Justice argued longstanding practice allows juries to infer theft or transport from unexplained possession shortly after a theft and believed the judge’s instruction was correct and the verdict supported by the evidence.