Neder v. United States
- Decided
- June 10, 1999
- Docket
- 97-1985
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,157 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harm- less — Hurst v. Florida (2016)
- holding that federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes require proof of materiality even though that element is not mentioned in the statutory text — Descamps v. United States (2013)
- holding that the trial court’s omission during its jury instructions of an essential element of the offense charged is subject to harmless error review — Robert Dale Murr v. United States (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was tried on charges of violating a number of federal criminal statutes penalizing fraud. It is agreed that the District Court erred in refusing to submit the issue of materiality to the jury with respect to those charges involving tax fraud. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506 (1995). We hold that the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), applies to this error. We also hold that materiality is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes under which petitioner was also charged.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.