Musacchio v. United States (14-1095)

argument 14-1095

Musacchio v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue presented in Musacchio v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case fourteen ten ninety five, Musaccio versus United States. Mr. Jaffe?

Benjamin Jaffe 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, may it please the Court. This case presents two questions concerning the consequences of the failure to object or raise an issue at trial. On the question of whether jury instructions, not objected to by the government, become the baseline for measuring the sufficiency of the evidence at later stages in the case, the critical point here is that only the jury can determine that a defendant is guilty. And if a jury does so under a particular framework, it should be evaluated under that framework. And if it cannot sustain that verdict on the reasons it used in its own deliberations, that verdict is not rational.

Antonin Scalia 0:49

Well there there there there's no doubt in this case, is there, that the jury found Beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed a crime. set forth in the indictment.

Benjamin Jaffe 1:03

Uh, Your Honor, I think that is not entirely correct. There is no doubt there was sufficient evidence that they could have done that, whether they did that.

Antonin Scalia 1:12

They had to find that plus something else. Wasn't that the issue? It was the issue. So if if they came in and said both are true. The first has to has to have been true.

Benjamin Jaffe 1:25

In the Fifth Circuit, we pointed out that there was the potential for confusion the way AND could have been misread by them as or and they would not have necessarily had unanimity on e on which elements of the AND I didn't read that as being a part of your case here. It is only so indirectly. So we raised this as plain error, and we lost that because we couldn't demonstrate prejudice because there was some uncertainty. Our point in this court is that if the government wants to ignore or have a court disregard the instructions, it would then be its burden to prove harmlessness, and that same uncertainty about unanimity would then redound to our benefit. Mm-hmm. Well, the or would have been accurate but would have required then a unanimity instruction to be clear which of the ores they agreed on.

Benjamin Jaffe 2:14

If six thought it was exceeding and six thought it was unauthorized, that is not a valid verdict. On

Elena Kagan 2:19

the basis of the argument in this case I didn't think there was any argument that the government tried this case solely on the theory That he encouraged others. to exceed their authority. If that's how they argued the case, that's how it was indicted. So Why isn't it harmless, Error?

Benjamin Jaffe 2:42

Be well, because the evidence is not sufficient to actually support that conclusion. The government certainly argued that the government is not a good thing.

Elena Kagan 2:51

that he exceeded authority. Yes. But it is more than sufficient, if not the only theory they could have convicted on was that they um that he had encouraged others to exceed their authority.

Benjamin Jaffe 3:08

No, I I I disagree, Your Honour. We argue that what he encouraged others to do, if one accepts all those facts as true, still would not constitute exceeding authority. I am saying the government's theory about what is and is not exceeding authority is somewhat confused in this case, as it was confused in the presentation at the trial level. and therefore it would not have been clear that that evidence would have been sufficient to show conspira conspiracy

Samuel A. Alito 3:37

to exceed. It doesn't seem clear to me that these two theories are actually separate. They they it Congr when Congress enacts a criminal statute, it often adds uh a a lot of synonyms. So, you know, in a in a uh theft statute, whoever embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts, et cetera, they're not necessarily all distinct. And I don't really see a difference between making unauthorized access and exceeding authorized access. Let's take the first, making unauthorized access. Let's say somebody has access to some an employee here in the building has access to lawful access, proper access to some records. If that employee at night sneaks into some other place in the building and starts looking through files, that person is making unauthorized access.

Samuel A. Alito 4:32

And in the other situation, exceeding authorized access, let's say a person