Marinello v. United States

U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 21, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)

Decided
March 21, 2018
Docket
No. 16-1144
Argued
December 6, 2017
Term
October Term 2017
Vote
7–2
Majority author
Justice Breyer
Issue area
Criminal Procedure
Disposition
Reversed and remanded
Outcome
Petitioning party won
Ideological direction
Liberal

How the Justices voted

Majority
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch
Dissenting
Justice Thomas (wrote), Justice Alito

Oral argument transcript and advocates

Opinion excerpt

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MARINELLO v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 16–1144. Argued December 6, 2017—Decided March 21, 2018 Between 2004 and 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intermit- tently investigated petitioner Marinello’s tax activities. In 2012, the Government indicted Marinello for violating, among other criminal tax statutes, a provision in 26 U. S. C. §7212(a) known as the Omni- bus Clause, which forbids “corruptly or by force or threats of force . . . obstruct[ing] or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the Internal Revenue Code].” The judge instructed the jury that, to convict Marinello of an Omnibus Clause violation, it must find that he “corruptly” engaged in at least one of eight specified activities, but the jury was not told that it needed to find that Marinello knew he was under investigation and intended corruptly to interfere…

Excerpt of a 58,638-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.

← Back to the decisions database