United States v. Mechanik
United States Supreme Court
457 U.S. 66 (1986)
Facts
Mechanik and Lill (defendants) were charged with drug-related offenses and conspiracy. The grand jury returned a superseding indictment that broadened the conspiracy charge. After the trial began, Mechanik and Lill discovered that the expanded conspiracy charge was based on the sworn testimony of two law enforcement agents who appeared together before the grand jury. Mechanik and Lill moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the simultaneous grand jury appearance of the two agents violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d). The motion was denied, taken under advisement when a new judge took over, and then denied after the jury returned a verdict of guilty because the Rule 6(d) violation had not harmed Mechanik and Lill. Mechanik and Lill appealed. A divided panel of the court of appeals reversed the conspiracy convictions and dismissed the conspiracy part of the superseding indictment as tainted by the 6(d) violation. A divided en banc court affirmed the panel’s decision. The government (plaintiff) and Mechanik and Lill filed for petitions for a writ of certiorari. The petitions were granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
