October Term 2006 · Docket 05-998
Can a missing indictment element be harmless error?
The government argues a missing indictment element is harmless. The defendant argues it is a constitutional violation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government argued that omitting an element is harmless. It cited a prior case involving jury instructions.
The defendant argued the Constitution mandates a single charging method. It stated that method is the federal indictment.
Justice Kennedy noted the lack of objection opportunities. He contrasted grand jury indictments with trial objections.
Justice Scalia asked if the Court must wait for a verdict. He questioned if the error is only clear after conviction.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a federal indictment must list every offense element. The government claims a missing element is harmless if evidence proves guilt. The defendant claims the Constitution requires a complete indictment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to affirm the conviction. It argues the missing element is harmless error.
The defendant wants the Court to reverse the conviction. It argues the missing element violates the Constitution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
What each side says
The government argues a missing indictment element is harmless. It cites precedent allowing harmless error in jury instructions.
The defendant argues the Constitution requires a complete indictment. It claims no other charging method exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the Court can answer the generic harmless error question. He questioned if the specific defect nature matters.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about probable cause timing. He wondered if prosecutors can indict before gathering all evidence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
Why it matters
This case defines the minimum requirements for federal criminal indictments. It determines whether prosecutors can omit elements and rely on trial evidence. The outcome shapes the balance between prosecutorial discretion and defendant rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.