Kotteakos v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Criminal Law

328 U.S. 750 (1946)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawsingle vs. multiple conspiraciesconspiracyvariancesingle conspiracymultiple conspiraciesharmless errorsubstantial rights

Facts

The indictment charged thirty-two defendants with one general conspiracy to induce financial institutions to make loans that would be offered to the Federal Housing Administration for insurance on false applications. The Government's proof showed that Simon Brown was the common central figure who arranged fraudulent National Housing Act loans for various persons, including petitioners, but it showed no connection among the separate groups other than Brown's role in each transaction. The evidence thus established at least eight separate conspiracies of the same general character rather than one overall conspiracy. The trial court nevertheless instructed the jury throughout that only one conspiracy was charged and that acts and statements of any conspirator could be considered against all found to be members of that conspiracy.

Issue

When an indictment charges a single conspiracy but the evidence proves several separate conspiracies connected only through one common participant, does the variance and the related jury misdirection amount to prejudicial error requiring reversal? More specifically, can such error be treated as harmless under the federal harmless-error statute when the evidence may separately support each petitioner's guilt in a smaller conspiracy?

Rule

Under the harmless-error statute, the inquiry is not simply whether there was enough evidence to convict apart from the error, but whether the error itself had substantial influence on the verdict. If the reviewing court cannot say with fair assurance that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, or is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand. In a conspiracy case, proof of several separate conspiracies cannot be treated as harmless variance from a charge of one conspiracy when the risk of transference of guilt across distinct conspiracies is so great that substantial rights are affected.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Federal prosecutors in Ohio indict 24 people for one conspiracy to submit fraudulent small-business grant applications. At trial in Cleveland, the proof shows seven separate groups, each using broker Nolan Price to file false paperwork, but no group knew of or worked with any other. The judge instructs the jury that there is only one conspiracy and that acts of any conspirator may be considered against all members of that conspiracy.

On appeal by a convicted defendant from one of the groups, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The majority held that when one conspiracy is charged but the evidence proves several separate conspiracies connected only by a common central figure, the key question is prejudice. In a mass-trial setting, instructions allowing the jury to treat all defendants as part of one conspiracy and to impute acts across groups create grave spillover danger. The proper inquiry is whether the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict, not whether the defendant was probably guilty of some smaller conspiracy.