Stirone v. United States

Background

The case involved Nicholas Stirone, a union official charged with extorting a concrete supplier, William Rider, who bought sand shipped into Pennsylvania from other States to make ready-mixed concrete. The indictment accused Stirone of obstructing interstate commerce in sand in violation of the Hobbs Act. At trial the Government also introduced evidence about possible future shipments of steel from a mill that Rider’s concrete would help build.

Reasoning

The Court’s key question was whether Stirone was convicted of conduct the grand jury did not charge. The Justices agreed that the indictment properly covered interference with sand shipments into Pennsylvania and that the Hobbs Act protects such commerce. But the Court found it was error to let the jury convict based on a different theory — interference with future steel shipments — because the grand jury never charged that theory. Relying on the long-standing rule that a felony prosecution must be begun by an indictment, the Court held that allowing conviction on an uncharged theory violated the defendant’s grand jury protection and was not harmless error.

Real world impact

The Court reversed Stirone’s conviction for that reason. The decision reinforces that federal criminal trials must stick to the charges the grand jury returned. It does not decide whether possible future steel shipments alone would satisfy the Hobbs Act; that separate legal question was left open.

Dissents or concurrances

Judges in the court of appeals had also warned that trying Stirone on the steel-shipment theory was improper; the Supreme Court agreed with that view and reversed.