Remmer v. United States
Headline: Criminal defendants get a public hearing when someone secretly contacts a juror or an FBI probe occurs; Court vacated the appeal and ordered a hearing to determine if the contact harmed the defendant.
Holding: In criminal trials, private contact with a juror is presumptively prejudicial, and the Government must prove harmlessness only after giving the defendant notice and a hearing.
- Requires a public hearing when outside contact with a juror is suspected.
- Places the burden on the Government to prove jury contact was harmless.
- Limits ex parte investigations like midtrial FBI probes without defense notice.
Summary
Background
A man convicted of willfully evading federal income taxes learned after the jury returned its verdict that, during the trial, an unnamed person spoke to a juror who later became the foreman and said he could profit by returning a verdict favorable to the defendant. The juror reported the remark to the judge, who told the prosecutors; the judge and prosecutors had the FBI investigate and reviewed the FBI report without telling the defendant or his lawyers. The defendant first learned of the incident from newspaper reports and moved for a new trial and a hearing, which the trial court denied without holding the requested hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed that denial.
Reasoning
The central question was whether secret contact with a juror and an ex parte investigation during a criminal trial require a hearing and relief. The Court said private contact with a juror about the case is presumptively harmful. That presumption is not absolute, but the Government bears a heavy burden to prove the contact was harmless — and must do so only after giving the defendant notice and a full hearing. The Court criticized using an FBI agent in the middle of a trial without informing the defense and held the trial court should not decide the matter ex parte.
Real world impact
The Court vacated the appellate judgment and sent the case back to the trial court with directions to hold a hearing to determine whether the juror contact was harmful; if harmful, the defendant must receive a new trial. This ruling protects jurors from outside pressure and requires transparent procedures when juror contact is suspected.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes the Chief Justice took no part; the Court did not decide other claims raised because the hearing question resolved the case.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?