Mariscal v. United States

Background

The case involves a defendant, George Mariscal, who was convicted in federal court on ten counts of transporting property obtained by fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the transportation convictions on the merits but declined to rule on the mail fraud counts, citing a discretionary "concurrent sentence" rule. The Solicitor General told this Court that the mail fraud convictions were invalid.

Reasoning

The central question the Court addressed was how to handle a criminal conviction that the Government itself now says is erroneous when a lower court relied on a rule that lets it avoid deciding some counts. The Court granted permission for the defendant to proceed without fees, agreed to hear the matter, accepted the Government’s concession, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment affirming the mail fraud counts, and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider whether the concurrent-sentence doctrine should apply when the United States concedes error.

Real world impact

The immediate practical result is that the defendant’s mail fraud convictions are not final and the appeals court must decide how to treat those counts given the Government’s concession. The Ninth Circuit’s earlier affirmance of the transportation convictions remains undisturbed by this order. The overall resolution of the mail fraud counts will depend on the Ninth Circuit’s reconsideration and is not final from this short order.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist (joined in essence by Justice White) dissented, arguing the Court should not automatically accept the Solicitor General’s suggestion of error without independently reviewing the merits.