author: Justice Rehnquist

text:
    UNITED STATES v. ABEL
    No. 83-935.
    Argued November 7, 1984
    Decided December 10, 1984

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Assistant Attorney General Trott argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Gloria C. Phares.

      Yolanda Barrera Gomez, by appointment of the Court, post, p. 809, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Peter M. Horstman.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed respondent’s conviction for bank robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court improperly admitted testimony which impeached one of respondent’s witnesses. We hold that the District Court did not err, and we reverse.

Respondent John Abel and two cohorts were indicted for robbing a savings and loan in Bellflower, Cal., in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). The cohorts elected to plead guilty, but respondent went to trial. One of the cohorts, Kurt Ehle, agreed to testify against respondent and identify him as a participant in the robbery.

Respondent informed the District Court at a pretrial conference that he would seek to counter Ehle’s testimony with that of Robert Mills. Mills was not a participant in the robbery but was friendly with respondent and with Ehle, and had spent time with both in prison. Mills planned to testify that after the robbery Ehle had admitted to Mills that Ehle intended to implicate respondent falsely, in order to receive favorable treatment from the Government. The prosecutor in turn disclosed that he intended to discredit Mills’ testimony by calling Ehle back to the stand and eliciting from Ehle the fact that respondent, Mills, and Ehle were all members of the “Aryan Brotherhood,” a secret prison gang that required its members always to deny the existence of the organization and to commit perjury, theft, and murder on each member’s behalf.

Defense counsel objected to Ehle’s proffered rebuttal testimony as too prejudicial to respondent. After a lengthy discussion in chambers the District Court decided to permit the prosecutor to cross-examine Mills about the gang, and if Mills denied knowledge of the gang, to introduce Ehle’s rebuttal testimony concerning the tenets of the gang and Mills’ and respondent’s membership in it. The District Court held that the probative value of Ehle’s rebuttal testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect, but that respondent might be entitled to a limiting instruction if his counsel would submit one to the court.

At trial Ehle implicated respondent as a participant in the robbery. Mills, called by respondent, testified that Ehle told him in prison that Ehle planned to implicate respondent falsely. When the prosecutor sought to cross-examine Mills concerning membership in the prison gang, the District Court conferred again with counsel outside of the jury’s presence, and ordered the prosecutor not to use the term “Aryan Brotherhood” because it was unduly prejudicial. Accordingly, the prosecutor asked Mills if he and respondent were members of a “secret type of prison organization” which had a creed requiring members to deny its existence and lie for each other. When Mills denied knowledge of such an organization the prosecutor recalled Ehle.

Ehle testified that respondent, Mills, and he were indeed members of a secret prison organization whose tenets required its members to deny its existence and “lie, cheat, steal [and] kill” to protect each other. The District Court sustained a defense objection to a question concerning the punishment for violating the organization’s rules. Ehle then further described the organization and testified that “in view of the fact of how close Abel and Mills were” it would have been “suicide” for Ehle to have told Mills what Mills attributed to him. Respondent’s counsel did not request a limiting instruction and none was given.

The jury convicted respondent. On his appeal a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. 707 F. 2d 1013 (1983). The Court of Appeals held that Ehle’s rebuttal testimony was admitted not just to show that respondent’s and Mills’ membership in the same group might cause Mills to color his testimony; the court held that the contested evidence was also admitted to show that because Mills belonged to a perjurious organization, he must be lying on the stand. This suggestion of perjury, based upon a group tenet, was impermissible. The court reasoned:

“It is settled law that the government may not convict an individual merely for belonging to an organization that advocates illegal activity. Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 219-24 . . . ; Brandenb[u]rg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 .... Rather, the government must show that the individual knows of and personally accepts the tenets of the organization. Neither should the government be allowed to impeach on the grounds of mere membership, since membership, without more, has no probative value. It establishes nothing about the individual’s own actions, beliefs, or veracity.” Id., at 1016 (citations omitted).

The court concluded that Ehle’s testimony implicated respondent as a member of the gang; but since respondent did not take the stand, the testimony could not have been offered to impeach him and it prejudiced him “by mere association.” Id., at 1017.

We hold that the evidence showing Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the prison gang was sufficiently probative of Mills’ possible bias towards respondent to warrant its admission into evidence. Thus it was within the District Court’s discretion to admit Ehle’s testimony, and the Court of Appeals was wrong in concluding otherwise.

Both parties correctly assume, as did the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that the question is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. But the Rules do not by their terms deal with impeachment for “bias,” although they do expressly treat impeachment by character evidence and conduct, Rule 608, by evidence of conviction of a crime, Rule 609, and by showing of religious beliefs or opinion, Rule 610. Neither party has suggested what significance we should attribute to this fact. Although we are nominally the promulgators of the Rules, and should in theory need only to consult our collective memories to analyze the situation properly, we are in truth merely a conduit when we deal with an undertaking as substantial as the preparation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the case of these Rules, too, it must be remembered that Congress extensively reviewed our submission, and considerably revised it. See 28 U. S. C. §2076; 4 J. Bailey III & O. Trelles II, Federal Rules of Evidence: Legislative Histories and Related Documents (1980).

Before the present Rules were promulgated, the admissibility of evidence in the federal courts was governed in part by statutes or Rules, and in part by case law. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 43(a) (prior to 1975 amendment); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 26 (prior to 1975 amendment); Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109 (1943); Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371 (1933); Shepard v. United States, 290 U. S. 96 (1933). This Court had held in Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687 (1931), that a trial court must allow some cross-examination of a witness to show bias. This holding was in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in the state courts as reflected in Wigmore’s classic treatise on the law of evidence. See id., at 691, citing 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1368 (2d ed. 1923); see also District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 630-633 (1937). Our decision in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308 (1974), holds that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires a defendant to have some opportunity to show bias on the part of a prosecution witness.

With this state of unanimity confronting the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we think it unlikely that they intended to scuttle entirely the evidentiary availability of cross-examination for bias. One commentator, recognizing the omission of any express treatment of impeachment for bias, prejudice, or corruption, observes that the Rules “clearly contemplate the use of the above-mentioned grounds of impeachment.” E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence §40, p. 85 (3d ed. 1984). Other commentators, without mentioning the omission, treat bias as a permissible and established basis of impeachment under the Rules. 3 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 341, p. 470 (1979); 3 J. Wein-stein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶607[03] (1981).

We think this conclusion is obviously correct. Rule 401 defines as “relevant evidence” evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the United States Constitution, by Act of Congress, or by applicable rule. A successful showing of bias on the part of a witness would have a tendency to make the facts to which he testified less probable in the eyes of the jury than it would be without such testimony.

The correctness of the conclusion that the Rules contemplate impeachment by showing of bias is confirmed by the references to bias in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rules 608 and 610, and by the provisions allowing any party to attack credibility in Rule 607, and allowing cross-examination on “matters affecting the credibility of the witness” in Rule 611(b). The Courts of Appeals have upheld use of extrinsic evidence to show bias both before and after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e. g., United States v. James, 609 F. 2d 36, 46 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 905 (1980); United States v. Frankenthal, 582 F. 2d 1102, 1106 (CA7 1978); United States v. Brown, 547 F. 2d 438, 445-446 (CA8), cert. denied sub nom. Hendrix v. United States, 430 U. S. 937 (1977); United States v. Harvey, 547 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA2 1976); United States v. Robinson, 174 U. S. App. D. C. 224, 227-228, 530 F. 2d 1076, 1079-1080 (1976); United States v. Blackwood, 456 F. 2d 526, 530 (CA2), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 863 (1972).

We think the lesson to be drawn from all of this is that it is permissible to impeach a witness by showing his bias under the Federal Rules of Evidence just as it was permissible to do so before their adoption. In this connection, the comment of the Reporter for the Advisory Committee which drafted the Rules is apropos:

“In principle, under the Federal Rules no common law of evidence remains. ‘All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided. . ..’ In reality, of course, the body of common law knowledge continues to exist, though in the somewhat altered form of a source of guidance in the exercise of delegated powers.” Cleary, Preliminary Notes on Reading the Rules of Evidence, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 908, 915 (1978) (footnote omitted).

Ehle’s testimony about the prison gang certainly made the existence of Mills’ bias towards respondent more probable. Thus it was relevant to support that inference. Bias is a term used in the “common law of evidence” to describe the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party. Bias may be induced by a witness’ like, dislike, or fear of a party, or by the witness’ self-interest. Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony. The “common law of evidence” allowed the showing of bias by extrinsic evidence, while requiring the cross-examiner to “take the answer of the witness” with respect to less favored forms of impeachment. See generally McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 40, at 89; Hale, Bias as Affecting Credibility, 1 Hastings L. J. 1 (1949).

Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the Aryan Brotherhood supported the inference that Mills’ testimony was slanted or perhaps fabricated in respondent’s favor. A witness’ and a party’s common membership in an organization, even without proof that the witness or party has personally adopted its tenets, is certainly probative of bias. We do not read our holdings in Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (1961), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969), to require a different conclusion. Those cases dealt with the constitutional requirements for convicting persons under the Smith Act and state syndicalism laws for belonging to organizations which espoused illegal aims and engaged in illegal conduct. Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the Aryan Brotherhood was not offered to convict either of a crime, but to impeach Mills’ testimony. Mills was subject to no sanction other than that he might be disbelieved. Under these circumstances there is no requirement that the witness must be shown to have subscribed to all the tenets of the organization, either casually or in a manner sufficient to permit him to be convicted under laws such as those involved in Scales and Brandenburg. For purposes of the law of evidence the jury may be permitted to draw an inference of subscription to the tenets of the organization from membership alone, even though such an inference would not be sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution under the Smith Act.

Respondent argues that even if the evidence of membership in the prison gang were relevant to show bias, the District Court erred in permitting a full description of the gang and its odious tenets. Respondent contends that the District Court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because the prejudicial effect of the contested evidence outweighed its probative value. In other words, testimony about the gang inflamed the jury against respondent, and the chance that he would be convicted by his mere association with the organization outweighed any probative value the testimony may have had on Mills’ bias.

Respondent specifically contends that the District Court should not have permitted Ehle’s precise description of the gang as a lying and murderous group. Respondent suggests that the District Court should have cut off the testimony after the prosecutor had elicited that Mills knew respondent and both may have belonged to an organization together. This argument ignores the fact that the type of organization in which a witness and a party share membership may be relevant to show bias. If the organization is a loosely knit group having nothing to do with the subject matter of the litigation, the inference of bias arising from common membership may be small or nonexistent. If the prosecutor had elicited that both respondent and Mills belonged to the Book of the Month Club, the jury probably would not have inferred bias even if the District Court had admitted the testimony. The attributes of the Aryan Brotherhood — a secret prison sect sworn to perjury and self-protection — bore directly not only on the fact of bias but also on the source and strength of Mills’ bias. The tenets of this group showed that Mills had a powerful motive to slant his testimony towards respondent, or even commit perjury outright.

A district court is accorded a wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules. Assessing the probative value of common membership in any particular group, and weighing any factors counseling against admissibility is a matter first for the district court’s sound judgment under Rules 401 and 403 and ultimately, if the evidence is admitted, for the trier of fact.

Before admitting Ehle’s rebuttal testimony, the District Court gave heed to the extensive arguments of counsel, both in chambers and at the bench. In an attempt to avoid undue prejudice to respondent the court ordered that the name “Aryan Brotherhood” not be used. The court also offered to give a limiting instruction concerning the testimony, and it sustained defense objections to the prosecutor’s questions concerning the punishment meted out to unfaithful members. These precautions did not prevent all prejudice to respondent from Ehle’s testimony, but they did, in our opinion, ensure that the admission of this highly probative evidence did not unduly prejudice respondent. We hold there was no abuse of discretion under Rule 403 in admitting Ehle’s testimony as to membership and tenets.

Respondent makes an additional argument based on Rule 608(b). That Rule allows a cross-examiner to impeach a witness by asking him about specific instances of past conduct, other than crimes covered by Rule 609, which are probative of his veracity or “character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” The Rule limits the inquiry to cross-examination of the witness, however, and prohibits the cross-examiner from introducing extrinsic evidence of the witness’ past conduct.

Respondent claims that the prosecutor cross-examined Mills about the gang not to show bias but to offer Mills’ membership in the gang as past conduct bearing on his veracity. This was error under Rule 608(b), respondent contends, because the mere fact of Mills’ membership, without more, was not sufficiently probative of Mills’ character for truthfulness. Respondent cites a second error under the same Rule, contending that Ehle’s rebuttal testimony concerning the gang was extrinsic evidence offered to impugn Mills’ veracity, and extrinsic evidence is barred by Rule 608(b).

The Court of Appeals appears to have accepted respondent’s argument to this effect, at least in part. It said:

“Ehle’s testimony was not simply a matter of showing that Abel’s and Mills’ membership in the same organization might ‘cause [Mills], consciously or otherwise, to color his testimony.’ . . . Rather it was to show as well that because Mills and Abel were members of a gang whose members ‘will lie to protect the members,’ Mills must be lying on the stand.” 707 F. 2d, at 1016.

It seems clear to us that the proffered testimony with respect to Mills’ membership in the Aryan Brotherhood sufficed to show potential bias in favor of respondent; because of the tenets of the organization described, it might also impeach his veracity directly. But there is no rule of evidence which provides that testimony admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another purpose is thereby rendered inadmissible; quite the contrary is the case. It would be a strange rule of law which held that relevant, competent evidence which tended to show bias on the part of a witness was nonetheless inadmissible because it also tended to show that the witness was a liar.

We intimate no view as to whether the evidence of Mills’ membership in an organization having the tenets ascribed to the Aryan Brotherhood would be a specific instance of Mills’ conduct which could not be proved against him by extrinsic evidence except as otherwise provided in Rule 608(b). It was enough that such evidence could properly be found admissible to show bias.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

       707 F. 2d 1013 (1983).

       In Scales and Brandenburg we discussed the First Amendment right of association as it bore on the right of persons freely to associate in political groups, short of participating in unlawful activity. See 395 U. S., at 449; 367 U. S., at 229-230. Whatever First Amendment associational rights an inmate may have to join a prison group, see Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U. S. 119 (1977), those rights were not implicated by Ehle’s rebuttal of Mills.

       Rule 403 provides:
      “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

       Rule 608(b) provides in pertinent part:
      “(b) Specific instances of conduct. — Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness . . . .”


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. POWELL
    No. 83-1307.
    Argued November 5, 1984
    Decided December 10, 1984

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Mark I. Levy argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, and Sara Criscitelli.

      John J. Cleary, by appointment of the Court, 467 U. S. 1239, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Dunn v. United States, 284 U. S. 390 (1932), this Court held that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count could not attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count. We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly enunciated an exception to Dunn when it overturned respondent’s convictions. 467 U. S. 1203 (1984).

In 1982, respondent Betty Lou Powell’s husband, Ron Powell, aided by his 17-year-old son Jeff and others, was operating a lucrative cocaine and methaqualone distributorship from the Powell home near San Diego, Cal. Federal authorities tapped the Powells’ telephone pursuant to a court order, and many conversations were recorded, including at least four which indicated that respondent was playing a minor role in the drug distributorship. Three of these conversations indicated that respondent was helping her husband and son to distribute drugs and to collect money owed for drugs sold. The fourth involved a conversation with a travel agent in which respondent booked an airline ticket for her husband in an assumed name. In April 1982, Ron Powell learned of the wiretap and notified his son, who called respondent and told her to leave home and drive to Los Ange-les. Respondent was followed by FBI agents, who after some difficulty managed to stop respondent and arrest her. A search of the car uncovered, inter alia, 2 kilograms of cocaine, 2,700 methaqualone tablets, a pistol, a machine gun, 2 silencers, and $30,000 cash.

Respondent was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of California for 15 counts of violations of federal law. Ten of these counts alleged transgressions of the federal narcotics laws; a jury convicted respondent of only three of these, and acquitted her of the others. Count 1 of the indictment charged respondent with conspiring with her husband and 17-year-old son, and others, “to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute cocaine.” Four of the “overt acts” listed in support of this conspiracy were the above-mentioned telephone conversations. Count 9 charged respondent with possession of a specific quantity of cocaine with intent to distribute it. The jury acquitted respondent of Counts 1 and 9. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 charged respondent with the compound offenses of using the telephone in “committing and in causing and facilitating” certain felonies — “conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine” — in violation of 84 Stat. 1263, 21 U.. S. C. § 843(b). The jury convicted her of Counts 3, 4, and 5, and acquitted her of Count 6.

On appeal respondent argued that the verdicts were inconsistent, and that she therefore was entitled to reversal of the telephone facilitation convictions. She contended that proof that she had conspired to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, or had so possessed cocaine, was an element of each of the telephone facilitation counts; since she had been acquitted of these offenses in Counts 1 and 9, respondent argued that the telephone facilitation convictions were not consistent with those acquittals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. 708 F. 2d 455 (1983). The court first rejected the Government’s contention that the verdicts could be viewed as consistent because the jury might have found respondent guilty of facilitating a conspiracy other than the conspiracy outlined in Count 1; the court concluded that it was “not convinced that there is evidence to support the government’s claim . . . .” Id., at 456. The court then cited United States v. Bailey, 607 F. 2d 237, 245 (CA9 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 934 (1980), and United States v. Hannah, 584 F. 2d 27, 28-30 (CA3 1978), for the proposition that a conviction under 21 U. S. C. § 843(b) must be reversed “when the conviction on the underlying conspiracy count is reversed.” 708 F. 2d, at 456.

The Government petitioned for rehearing, arguing that the court had ignored the rule of Dunn v. United States, supra, that inconsistent verdicts in criminal trials need not be set aside, but may instead be viewed as a demonstration of the jury’s leniency. The court issued another opinion, stating that the Ninth Circuit “follows the Dunn rule,” but spelling out in more detail the court’s view that situations where a defendant has been convicted under § 843(b) but acquitted of the felony he is charged with facilitating consititute exceptions to the rule, and that in those situations the § 843(b) conviction must be reversed. 719 F. 2d 1480 (1983).

The Court of Appeals explained that an acquittal on the predicate felony necessarily indicated that there was insufficient evidence to support the telephone facilitation conviction, and mandated acquittal on that count as well. The court went on to reject more explicitly the Government’s argument that the jury might have found a different predicate felony than the conspiracy charged in Count 1; it noted that the case simply had not been presented to the jury under such a theory. We granted certiorari to address whether the Court of Appeals in this case, and other of the Courts of Appeals, see Hannah, supra; United States v. Brooks, 703 F. 2d 1273, 1278-1279 (CA11 1983), have acted consistently with Dunn in recognizing exceptions to the rule of that case.

The defendant in Dunn was tried pursuant to a three-count indictment charging violations of the federal liquor laws. The first count alleged that the defendant had maintained a common nuisance by keeping intoxicating liquor for sale at a specified place; the second and third counts charged unlawful possession, and unlawful sale, of such liquor. The jury convicted defendant of the first count and acquitted him of the second and third. On review, this Court rejected the claim that the defendant was entitled to discharge because the verdicts were inconsistent. Speaking through Justice Holmes, the Court stated:

“Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. Latham v. The Queen, 5 Best & Smith 635, 642, 643. Selvester v. United States, 170 U. S. 262. If separate indictments had been presented against the defendant for possession and for maintenance of a nuisance, and had been separately tried, the same evidence being offered in support of each, an acquittal on one could not be pleaded as res judicata of the other. Where the offenses are separately charged in the counts of a single indictment the same rule must hold. As was said in Steckler v. United States, 7 F. (2d) 59, 60:
“ ‘The most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt. We interpret the acquittal as no more than their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.’” Dunn, 284 U. S., at 393.

Fifty-three years later most of what Justice Holmes so succinctly stated retains its force. Indeed, although not expressly reaffirming Dunn this Court has on numerous occasions alluded to its rule as an established principle. Thus, in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 279 (1943), the rule was invoked to support a jury verdict finding the president of a corporation guilty of introducing adulterated or misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, but acquitting the corporation of the same charge. And more recently, in Harris v. Rivera, 454 U. S. 339 (1981), this Court again reaffirmed the Dunn rule in the course of holding that a defendant could not obtain relief by writ of habeas corpus on the basis of inconsistent verdicts rendered after a state bench trial. This Court noted that Dunn and Dotterweich establish “the unreviewable power of a jury to return a verdict of not guilty for impermissible reasons.” Harris v. Rivera, supra, at 346. See also Standefer v. United States, 447 U. S. 10, 22-23 (1980).

These decisions indicate that this is not a case where a once-established principle has gradually been eroded by subsequent opinions of this Court. Nevertheless, recent decisions in the Courts of Appeals have begun to carve exceptions out of the Dunn rule. See Brooks, supra; United States v. Hannah, 584 F. 2d 27 (CA3 1978). See also United States v. Morales, 677 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1982) (overturning a conspiracy conviction where the defendant was acquitted of all the “overt acts” charged in support of the conspiracy). In addition to evidencing a general displeasure with allowing inconsistent verdicts to stand under some circumstances, these courts have distinguished Dunn on the ground that, where the predicate felony count and the telephone facilitation count are each submitted to the jury, the counts are “interdependent” and each count cannot be regarded as “as if it [were] a separate indictment.” See Hannah, supra, at 30.

In so stating, these courts may be attempting to distinguish Dunn on its facts, or they may mean to take issue with Dunn’s statement that “[i]f separate indictments had been presented against the defendant. . . and had been separately tried ... an acquittal on one could not be pleaded as res judicata of the other. ” The latter statement, if not incorrect at the time, see United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. S. 85, 87 (1916), can no longer be accepted in light of cases such as Sealfon v. United States, 332 U. S. 575 (1948), and Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 (1970), which hold that the doctrine of collateral estoppel would apply under those circumstances. Respondent argues that this defect in Dunn’s rationale precludes the rule’s application in this case; indeed, respondent urges that principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel should apply to verdicts rendered by a single jury, to preclude acceptance of a guilty verdict on a telephone facilitation count where the jury acquits the defendant of the predicate felony.

We believe that the Dunn rule rests on a sound rationale that is independent of its theories of res judicata, and that it therefore survives an attack based upon its presently erroneous reliance on such theories. As the Dunn Court noted, where truly inconsistent verdicts have been reached, “[t]he most that can be said ... is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt.” Dunn, supra, at 393. The rule that the defendant may not upset such a verdict embodies a prudent acknowledgment of a number of factors. First, as the above quote suggests, inconsistent verdicts — even verdicts that acquit on a predicate offense while convicting on the compound offense — should not necessarily be interpreted as a windfall to the Government at the defendant’s expense. It is equally possible that the jury, convinced of guilt, properly reached its conclusion on the compound offense, and then through mistake, compromise, or lenity, arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on the lesser offense. But in such situations the Government has no recourse if it wishes to correct the jury’s error; the Government is precluded from appealing or otherwise upsetting such an acquittal by the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 188 (1957); Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, 130, 133 (1904).

Inconsistent verdicts therefore present a situation where “error,” in the sense that the jury has not followed the court’s instructions, most certainly has occurred, but it is unclear whose ox has been gored. Given this uncertainty, and the fact that the Government is precluded from challenging the acquittal, it is hardly satisfactory to allow the defendant to receive a new trial on the conviction as a matter of course. Harris v. Rivera, supra, indicates that nothing in the Constitution would require such a protection, and we therefore address the problem only under our supervisory powers over the federal criminal process. For us, the possibility that the inconsistent verdicts may favor the criminal defendant as well as the Government militates against review of such convictions at the defendant’s behest. This possibility is a premise of Dunn’s alternative rationale — that such inconsistencies often are a product of jury lenity. Thus, Dunn has been explained by both courts and commentators as a recognition of the jury’s historic function, in criminal trials, as a check against arbitrary or oppressive exercises of power by the Executive Branch. See, e. g., United States v. May- bury, 274 F. 2d 899, 902 (CA2 1960) (Friendly, J.); Bickel, Judge and Jury — Inconsistent Verdicts in the Federal Courts, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 649, 652 (1950). Cf. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155-156 (1968).

The burden of the exercise of lenity falls only on the Government, and it has been suggested that such an alternative should be available for the difficult cases where the jury wishes to avoid an all-or-nothing verdict. See Bickel, supra, at 652. Such an act is, as the Dunn Court recognized, an “assumption of a power which [the jury has] no right to exercise,” but the illegality alone does not mean that such a collective judgment should be subject to review. The fact that the inconsistency may be the result of lenity, coupled with the Government’s inability to invoke review, suggests that inconsistent verdicts should not be reviewable.

We also reject, as imprudent and unworkable, a rule that would allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent verdicts on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity, but of some error that worked against them. Such an individualized assessment of the reason for the inconsistency would be based either on pure speculation, or would require inquiries into the jury’s deliberations that courts generally will not undertake. Jurors, of course, take an oath to follow the law as charged, and they are expected to follow it. See Adams v. Texas, 448 U. S. 38 (1980). To this end trials generally begin with voir dire, by judge or counsel, seeking to identify those jurors who for whatever reason may be unwilling or unable to follow the law and render an impartial verdict on the facts and the evidence. But with few exceptions, see McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548, 556 (1984); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209, 217 (1982), once the jury has heard the evidence and the case has been submitted, the litigants must accept the jury’s collective judgment. Courts have always resisted inquiring into a jury’s thought processes, see McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264 (1915); Fed. Rule Evid. 606(b) (stating that jurors are generally incompetent to testify concerning jury deliberations); through this deference the jury brings to the criminal process, in addition to the collective judgment of the community, an element of needed finality.

Finally, we note that a criminal defendant already is afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the trial and appellate courts. This review should not be confused with the problems caused by inconsistent verdicts. Sufficiency-of-the-evidence review involves assessment by the courts of whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 80 (1942); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(a); cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 316, 319 (1979). This review should be independent of the jury’s determination that evidence on another count was insufficient. The Government must convince the jury with its proof, and must also satisfy the courts that given this proof the jury could rationally have reached a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not believe that further safeguards against jury irrationality are necessary.

Respondent contends, nevertheless, that an exception to the Dunn rule should be made where the jury acquits a defendant of a predicate felony, but convicts on the compound felony. Such an “exception” falls almost of its own weight. First, the acceptability of this exception is belied by the facts of Dunn itself. In Dunn, the defendant was acquitted of unlawful possession, and unlawful sale, of liquor, but was convicted of maintaining a nuisance by keeping unlawful liquor for sale at a specified place. The same evidence was adduced for all three counts, and Justice Butler’s dissent persuasively points out that the jury could not have convicted on the nuisance count without finding that the defendant possessed, or sold, intoxicating liquor. Dunn, 284 U. S., at 398. Respondent’s exception therefore threatens to swallow the rule.

Second, respondent’s argument that an acquittal on a predicate offense necessitates a finding of insufficient evidence on a compound felony count simply misunderstands the nature of the inconsistent verdict problem. Whether presented as an insufficient evidence argument, or as an argument that the acquittal on the predicate offense should collaterally estop the Government on the compound offense, the argument necessarily assumes that the acquittal on the predicate offense was proper — the one the jury “really meant.” This, of course, is not necessarily correct; all we know is that the verdicts are inconsistent. The Government could just as easily — and erroneously — argue that since the jury convicted on the compound offense the evidence on the predicate offense must have been sufficient. The problem is that the same jury reached inconsistent results; once that is established principles of collateral estoppel — which are predicated on the assumption that the jury acted rationally and found certain facts in reaching its verdict — are no longer useful.

This problem is not altered when the trial judge instructs the jury that it must find the defendant guilty of the predicate offense to convict on the compound offense. Although such an instruction might indicate that the counts are no longer independent, if inconsistent verdicts are nevertheless reached those verdicts still are likely to be the result of mistake, or lenity, and therefore are subject to the Dunn rationale. Given this impasse, the factors detailed above— the Government’s inability to invoke review, the general reluctance to inquire into the workings of the jury, and the possible exercise of lenity — suggest that the best course to take is simply to insulate jury verdicts from review on this ground.

Turning to the case at hand, respondent argues that the jury could not properly have acquitted her of conspiracy to possess cocaine and possession of cocaine, and still found her guilty of using the telephone to facilitate those offenses. The Government does not dispute the inconsistency here. For the reasons previously stated, however, there is no reason to vacate respondent’s conviction merely because the verdicts cannot rationally be reconciled. Respondent is given the benefit of her acquittal on the counts on which she was acquitted, and it is neither irrational nor illogical to require her to accept the burden of conviction on the counts on which the jury convicted. The rule established in Dunn v. United States has stood without exception in this Court for 53 years. If it is to remain that way, and we think it should, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be

Reversed.

       Respondent twice eluded the agents before eventually being stopped. She succeeded the second time by running her car into an agent and an FBI vehicle.

       Of the remaining five counts, four charged illegal possession of firearms. Respondent was acquitted of all these. The last count charged her with making false statements in her petition for court-appointed counsel. Respondent was convicted on this count, and her conviction was affirmed on appeal. 708 F. 2d 455, 457 (CA9 1983). The count is not in issue here.

       Title 21 U. S. C. § 843(b) provides in part:
      “(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a separate offense under this subsection.”

         The lower courts seem to agree that the Government must prove, as an element of a § 843(b) offense, the commission of the felony that the accused is charged with facilitating. See United States v. Ward, 696 F. 2d 1315, 1319 (CA11), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 934 (1983); United States v. Watson, 594 F. 2d 1330, 1342-1344 (CA10 1979).

       For purposes of our review the Government has conceded that the verdicts are inconsistent.

       After so stating, the court concluded: “We adhere to our statement in our opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions on Counts 3, 4, and 5 . . . .” 719 F. 2d, at 1481. Respondent seizes upon this language, and similar language in the original opinion, to argue that the Ninth Circuit actually determined upon independent review of the record that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979). A review of the statements in context proves that respondent’s argument is unsupportable. The court was merely expressing its opinion that the jury’s acquittals on the predicate offenses required a finding of insufficient evidence on the compound offenses. We do not believe that its somewhat cryptic reliance on United States v. Bailey, 607 F. 2d 237, 245 (CA9 1979), indicates the contrary. Neither Jackson nor the sufficieney-of-the-evidence test were even cited.
      Respondent alternatively urges us to conduct our own independent review of the record. It is not clear whether respondent preserved a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim below, but in any event the Court of Appeals did not pass upon the claim, and we decline to address it in the first instance. For similar reasons we decline to address the other claims that respondent has urged in support of affirmance.

       In Standefer v. United States, 447 U. S. 10 (1980), this Court invoked concerns similar to those expressed above in refusing to apply the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel to preclude prosecution of an aider and abettor where a jury had already acquitted the principal. Citing Dunn, we emphasized that through lenity, compromise, or mistake the jury might have reached an irrational result in the prior trial, which result was not subject to review at the Government’s instigation. Under those circumstances we refused the protection of nonmutual collateral estoppel where the protection had as its basis the assumption that a criminal jury had acted in a rational manner. 447 U. S., at 22-23.

       Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide the proper resolution of a situation where a defendant is convicted of two crimes, where a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other. Cf. United States v. Daigle, 149 F. Supp. 409 (DC), aff’d per curiam, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 286, 248 F. 2d 608 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U. S. 913 (1958).


author: Justice Rehnquist Justice Stevens,

text:
    GARCIA et al. v. UNITED STATES
    No. 83-6061.
    Argued October 10, 1984
    Decided December 10, 1984
    Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, Powell, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 80.

      Charles G. White argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Theodore J. Sakowitz.

      J err old J. Ganzfried argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, and John F. De Pue.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners assaulted an undercover United States Secret Service agent with a loaded pistol, in an attempt to rob him of $1,800 of Government “flash money” that the agent was using to buy counterfeit currency from them. They were convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. § 2114, which proscribes the assault and robbery of any custodian of “mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed petitioners’ convictions, over their contention that § 2114 is limited to crimes involving the Postal Service. 718 F. 2d 1528 (1983). We granted certiorari, 466 U. S. 926 (1984), to resolve a split in the Circuits concerning the reach of § 2114, and we affirm.

Agent K. David Holmes of the United States Secret Service posed as someone interested in purchasing counterfeit currency. He met petitioners Jose and Francisco Garcia in a park in Miami, Fla. Petitioners agreed to sell Holmes a large quantity of counterfeit currency, and asked that he show them the genuine currency he intended to give in exchange. He “flashed” the $1,800 of money to which he had been entrusted by the United States, and they showed him a sample of their wares — a counterfeit $50 bill.

Wrangling over the terms of the agreement began, and Jose Garcia leapt in front of Holmes brandishing a semiautomatic pistol. He pointed the pistol at Holmes, assumed a combat stance, chambered a round into the pistol, and demanded the money. While Holmes slowly raised his hands over his head, three Secret Service agents who had been watching from afar raced to the scene on foot. Jose Garcia dropped the pistol and surrendered, but Francisco Garcia seized the money belonging to the United States and fled. The agents arrested Jose Garcia on the spot, and pursued and later arrested Francisco Garcia as well.

Petitioners were convicted in a jury trial of violating 18 U. S. C. §2114 by assaulting a lawful custodian of Government money, Agent Holmes, with intent to “rob, steal, or purloin” the money. That section states in full:

“Whoever assaults any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or robs any such person of mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, shall for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he wounds the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or puts his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years.”

Both petitioners were sentenced to the 25-year prison term mandated by § 2114 when the assault puts the custodian’s life in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction. The only issue before us on certiorari is whether the language “any money, or other property of the United States” in § 2114 includes the $1,800 belonging to the United States and entrusted to Agent Holmes as “flash money” in this case.

Section 2114 prohibits the assault with intent to rob of “any person having lawful charge, control or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States . . . .” (emphasis supplied). Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the reach of this language, Congress intended that only the robbery of “postal” money or property was to be covered by the statute.

The enacted language of the statute is contrary to petitioners’ argument. The language protects custodians of any mail matter, custodians of any United States money, and, in a catchall phrase, custodians of any other United States property. As in our recent case of Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), “[n]othing on the face of the statute suggests a congressional intent to limit its coverage to persons [employed by the Postal Service].” Id., at 60.

The three classes of property protected by § 2114 are each separated by the conjunction “or.” Canons of construction indicate that terms connected in the disjunctive in this manner be given separate meanings. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 739-740 (1978). In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330 (1979), we refused to ignore the statutory meaning which would be presumed from similar disjunctive language, stating that the use of the term “or” indicates an intent to give the nouns their separate, normal meanings. Id., at 339. In our case, Congress separated “mail matter,” “money,” and “other property” from one another by use of a disjunctive, and we think this means that the word “money” must be given its ordinary, separate meaning; it does not mean “postal money” or “money in the custody of postal employees.”

Petitioners contend that the language of the statute is ambiguous, and in support of this contention offer what seems to us a rather labyrinthine explanation of the statutory language. Petitioners first claim that the conjunction “or” cannot properly be read to totally separate the three types of property listed in the prohibition; for if the word “or” indeed strictly separates the three types of property, the statute would proscribe assaults on custodians of any “money,” whether or not it was money belonging to the United States, because the term “money” would not be modified or restricted by the term “of the United States” which follows the word “property.” Thus Congress would have enacted a law, say petitioners, proscribing assaults on custodians of money by whomever owned, and “Congress would then have enacted a Federal robbery statute without any jurisdictional basis.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 8. Because Congress could not have intended this absurd result, petitioners contend, there is an ambiguity in the statutory language. This contention, however, totally ignores the word “other” which follows “money” and shows that the money referred to, like the property referred to, is money belonging to the United States.

Petitioners then develop their argument by invoking the principle of ejusdem generis to resolve the ambiguity which their analysis creates. Under that principle, of course, where general words follow an enumeration of specific terms, the general words are read to apply only to other items like those specifically enumerated. See Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 588 (1980). Petitioners thus urge that “mail matter” is a specific term, and therefore the general terms “money” and “other property” which follow it must be read in the specific, restricted postal context. They conclude that “money” was intended to mean “postal money” and “other property of the United States” was intended to mean “other postal property.”

We said in Harrison that “‘“the rule of ejusdem generis, while firmly established, is only an instrumentality for ascertaining the correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty.””’ Ibid., quoting United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 91 (1975), in turn quoting Gooch v. United States, 297 U. S. 124, 128 (1936). We are not persuaded that petitioners’ analysis of the statutory language creates any ambiguity in the plain meaning of the words, and even if it did we do not think that the particular language here lends itself to the application of the ejusdem generis rule. We have previously noted that the terms in question are made separate and distinct from one another by Congress’ use of the disjunctive; in addition, the term “mail matter” is no more specific a term — and is probably less specific — than “money.”

Notwithstanding petitioners’ argument to the contrary, we are satisfied that the statutory language with which we deal has a plain and unambiguous meaning. While we now turn to the legislative history as an additional tool of analysis, we do so with the recognition that only the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions from those data would justify a limitation on the “plain meaning” of the statutory language. When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in “‘rare and exceptional circumstances,’” TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 187, n. 33 (1978), quoting Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U. S. 55, 60 (1930).

Section 2114 had its genesis as a law to protect mail carriers from assault and robbery of mail matter. The forerunner to §2114 was 18 U. S. C. §320 (1934 ed., Supp. V). It proscribed assault and robbery of “any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter.” Section 320 had been placed in Chapter 8 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Chapter 8 was entitled “Offenses Against Postal Service.” In 1935, however, the 74th Congress amended § 320 by appending after the term “mail matter” the clause “or of any money or other property of the United States.” Section 320 as amended retained its place in Chapter 8 of Title 18 until 1948, when it was transferred to Chapter 103, which is entitled “Robbery and Burglary” and contains all of the federal statutes covering those crimes. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat.. 797. Section 320 was then renumbered as §2114; with the exception of minor particulars the text of the statute has remained unchanged since the 1935 amendment.

Petitioners contend that the 1935 amendment to § 320 was not intended to expand the reach of that statute beyond postal crimes. In support of this they rely on some short colloquies from the House floor which they describe as “snippets.”

In surveying legislative history we have repeatedly stated that the authoritative source for finding the Legislature’s intent lies in the Committee Reports on the bill, which “represent] the considered and collective understanding of those Congressmen involved in drafting and studying proposed legislation.” Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 186 (1969). We have eschewed reliance on the passing comments of one Member, Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U. S. 25, 35 (1982), and casual statements from the floor debates. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968); Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). In O’Brien, supra, at 385, we stated that Committee Reports are “more authoritative” than comments from the floor, and we expressed a similar preference in Zuber, supra, at 187.

The Committee Reports on this bill show no intent on the part of the 74th Congress to limit the amended §320 to less than the normal reach of its words. The House Report on the bill to amend § 320 is entitled “SAFEGUARDING CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS AND PROPERTY” and states that “[t]he purpose of the pending bill is to bring, within the provisions of the Penal Code the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys.” H. R. Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). The Senate Report on the 1935 amendment is entitled “PROVIDING FOR PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBING OR ATTEMPTING TO ROB CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS OR PROPERTY,” and the Senate Report states the purpose of the bill exactly like the House Report. S. Rep. No. 1440, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). Nowhere do the Committee Reports state that the amended statute required a “postal nexus” or was limited to postal crimes.

Petitioners make a good deal of the fact that both Reports contain the letter from the Postmaster General, requesting enactment of the bill. That official’s letter, however, says nothing about limiting the broad language of the bill to postal crimes, but instead speaks simply of “custodian[s] of Government funds,” not of Government “mail.” H. R. Rep. No. 582, supra, at 1; S. Rep. No. 1440, supra, at 1. In two places the Postmaster General’s letter states that the bill was designed to punish the crime of “robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys.” Ibid. Thus the Committee Reports show that the Postmaster, and the two Committees responsible for the legislation, gave no evidence of their belief that the statute was limited to postal crimes.

Petitioners rely heavily on the statement of Representative Dobbins, whom the dissent identifies as the floor manager, made on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 24, 1935. Representative Dobbins stated:

“The only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials. . . . [L]et me say there are many custodians of postal stations who have a great amount of money in their custody but little mail____” 79 Cong. Rec. 8205 (1935).

We find a number of flaws in petitioners’ argument that Representative Dobbins’ statement is clear proof of Congress’ intent. First, this snippet quotes Representative Dobbins out of context. The above-quoted statement was made in response to an objection from another Member concerning the mandatory 25-year penalty in the proposed statute. As one in favor of the bill, Representative Dobbins’ attempt to limit the scope of the statute is best read in light of this objection. See ibid. To permit such colloquies to alter the clear language of the statute undermines the intent of Congress. Regan v. Wald, 468 U. S. 222, 237 (1984). See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16 (1983). Isolated statements such as Representative Dobbins’ are “not impressive legislative history.” Zuber, supra, at 187. If they were, a statement of Representative Wolcott earlier in the same colloquy to the effect that “[tjhis bill is confined to assaults on Federal law-enforcement officers,” 79 Cong. Rec., at 8205, would seem to counterbalance the import of Representative Dobbins’ statement. Thus petitioners would lose even if we were to adopt some type of reverse parol evidence rule, where oral statements were elevated above enacted language in determining the meaning of the statute.

We think probably the strongest argument that may be made for limitation on the coverage of § 2114, although petitioners do not themselves make it as such, is that set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Reid, 517 F. 2d 953 (1975), and amplified by our dissenting colleagues today. This argument is certainly not without persuasive power, and it would perhaps be controlling if there were substantial ambiguity in the language Congress had enacted. But there is nó such ambiguity. We are not willing to narrow the plain meaning of even a criminal statute on the basis of a gestalt judgment as to what Congress probably intended.

As a final argument petitioners assert that they are vindicated by the Solicitor General’s earlier stipulation in United States v. Hanahan, 442 F. 2d 649 (CA7 1971), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 807 (1973). In that case we were faced with the identical issue presented here, but we vacated and remanded in light of the Solicitor General’s concession that §2114 only applied to postal crimes. The Solicitor General now states that his concession in Hanahan was unwarranted. As we noted in NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U. S. 335, 351 (1978), a governmental agency “is not disqualified from changing its mind” concerning the construction of a statute. See also Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S. 212, 222 (1976). Moreover, private agreements between litigants, especially those disowned, cannot relieve this Court of performance of its judicial function. It is our responsibility to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting §2114, irrespective of petitioners’ or respondent’s prior or present views. “[T]he proper administration of the criminal law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of [the] parties.” Young v. United States, 315 U. S. 257, 259 (1942). We agree that the Solicitor General’s prior concession was ill-advised, but it does not control this case.

Petitioners seek to clip §2114 despite its plain terms, but “[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way.” Russello, 464 U. S., at 23. Instead, Congress selected language that penalized assaults or robberies of anyone who is a custodian of “any money or other property of the United States.” It is beyond question that by using a pistol in an effort to rob Agent Holmes, petitioners fell squarely within the prohibitions of the statute.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

When the literal application of a statute would produce a result “demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters,” the actual legislative intent must control our disposition. See Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 571 (1982). I believe a similar rule should apply to the literal application of a federal criminal statute that is dramatically broader than the coverage that its draftsmen intended.

I

A fair reading of the entire history of 18 U. S. C. § 2114 convinces me that Congress never intended it to apply outside of the postal context. As the Court correctly notes, ante, at 75, § 2114 “had its genesis as a law to protect mail carriers from assault and robbery of mail matter.” The deterrent purpose of such a law justifies the imposition of especially severe sanctions. For that reason, heavy penalties have always been authorized, and sometimes mandated, for assaults upon mail carriers.

The Second Congress, recognizing the importance of the delivery of the mails, enacted the earliest predecessor to §2114 in 1792. That enactment, entitled “An Act to establish the Post-Office and Post Roads within the United States,” stated in part that death was the penalty for any person who robbed “any carrier of the mail of the United States.” The penalty for robbery of a carrier of the mail remained the same when the Third Congress passed the Act of May 8, 1794. Almost three years later, Congress made aiding and abetting the robbery of a mail carrier an offense also subject to a penalty of death.

Repeatedly in subsequent years Congress enacted special legislation dealing with mail-robbery offenses. Such statutes were enacted in 1799, 1810, 1825, 1872, and 1909. In the 1909 statute, Congress established a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration of 25 years for attempted robbery if the mail carrier was wounded or had his life put in danger. As it had done consistently for over a century, Congress thus ensured that the law would provide special protection for a person within the postal setting by making it clear that a crime upon such a person was an unusually serious matter, not only because it was a federal offense, but also because of the severity of the mandated penalty.

The history through the 1909 codification and in the immediate years thereafter unequivocally demonstrates that §2114’s predecessors were always intended for postal offenses. This case, of course, involves an interpretation of the amendment of § 320 of Title 18 that Congress adopted in 1935. The question is whether Congress intended to abandon the postal nexus that had characterized this legislation throughout its long history.

II

A review of the circumstances leading to the 1935 amendment persuades me that Congress merely intended to broaden the protection of postal workers. In 1934 two bills containing the amendatory language that was enacted in the following year were introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Neither of those bills was reported out of that Committee which, of course, is the Committee that would normally process a significant change in the general coverage of the Criminal Code. In 1935, the highest postal official, the Postmaster General, wrote a letter to Representative James M. Mead, Chairman of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, requesting an amendment to cover assaults on custodians of Government funds. In both the House and the Senate it was the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads that processed the requested legislation. See H. R. Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); S. Rep. No. 1440, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935).

The 1935 amendment that was referred to the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads was a noncontroversial measure that Congressman Dobbins, a Member of that Committee, managed on the floor of the House. In response to a query, he stated that “[t]he only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials, the same as it now extends that protection to mail matter in the custody of its postal officials.” When a relatively minor piece of legislation of this sort is processed with almost no debate on the floor of either House, the unambiguous comment of a spokesman for the Committee that reported the bill is particularly illuminating. In my opinion it is entitled to greater weight than a general statement in the Committee Reports that is little more than a paraphrase of the statutory language itself.

As Judge Friendly succinctly wrote in United States v. Reid, 517 F. 2d 953 (CA2 1975):

“[T]he 1935 amendment was to a statute which stood in the chapter of the Criminal Code dealing with offenses against the postal service. No Congressman could have supposed that, in passing an amendment to that section proposed by the Postmaster General and recommended by the committees dealing with the postal service, he was creating a new crime with respect to government property generally.” Id., at 957, n. 3a.

Ill

Even after Congress enacted the 1935 amendment, thus structuring the statute to read in much the same form as it exists today, the statute remained in the chapter dealing with crimes against the Postal Service until the general revision of the Judicial Code in 1948. No one contends that the 1948 revision changed the meaning of the statute.

Apparently it never occurred to any federal prosecutor that this statute had any application outside the postal context until several decades after it was amended. Indeed, in 1973, when the question was first considered at the top executive level of the Department of Justice in United States v. Hanahan, 442 F. 2d 649 (CA7 1971), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 807 (1973), Solicitor General Bork carefully examined the question, concluding that it covered only postal crimes. The Solicitor General’s explanation of that conclusion merits quotation:

“In 1935 Congress added the more encompassing phrase ‘money or other property of the United States.’ On its face the statute covers the crime for which petitioner was convicted, as one involving a ‘person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any . . . money or other property of the United States .... We agree with petitioner, however, that the legislative history plainly shows that the statute was intended to apply only to postal crimes.
“The bill amending the statute was designed to remedy the anomalous situation which existed under the old statute. Before the amendments the statute imposed a severe penalty on one who robbed mail matter from the Postal Office but imposed no penalty on one who robbed money or other valuable property from the Post Office. . . .
“The change in the law had been advocated by the Post Office Department and only that Department submitted a report on the bill to the House and Senate Committees on Post Office and Post Roads. . . . We therefore concede that Section 2114, as amended, was designed only to cover robberies of post offices or postal employees.”

IV

Even if I am correct in my appraisal of the actual intent of Congress, it is arguable that the statutory language is sufficiently plain that it should nevertheless be given effect. There are, however, three special concerns that lead me to the contrary conclusion.

First is the relationship between this statute and other parts of the Criminal Code. The general statute proscribing thefts of Government property, 18 U. S. C. §2112, carries a lesser penalty even if violence accompanies the theft. The more severe penalty in § 2114 is only explicable if we assume that Congress wanted to provide a special deterrent to crimes against an identifiable class of federal employees. Moreover, that special deterrent is consistent with the congressional decision in 1868 that mail carriers should wear special uniforms that the Postmaster General prescribed. See Act of July 27,1868, ch. 246, §20,15 Stat. 197. Robbery of a uniformed postal worker fits squarely into the rationale for § 2114. The assault in this case, however, was upon an undercover agent not known to have any connection with the Federal Government. This type of robbery is not appropriately prosecuted under §2114.

Second, the severity of the mandatory minimum sentences — 10 years if no actual or threatened violence is involved and 25 years in a case of this kind — is rather plainly disproportionate to the offense if it covers every conceivable theft of Government property — even the attempted robbery of a Government-owned hammer. The Government responds by noting that it is for Congress to decide if a penalty is too harsh. This is quite true. But this response identifies my final — and most important — concern.

It is Congress, rather than the Executive, that must define the dimensions of the federal law enforcement program. Law enforcement remains, and should remain, the primary responsibility of the several States. Every increase in the power of the federal prosecutor moves us a step closer to a national police force with its attendant threats to individual liberty. For that reason, I believe we have a special obligation to make sure that Congress intended to authorize a novel assertion of federal criminal jurisdiction. Cf. Bell v. United States, 462 U. S. 356, 363 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting); McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642, 675 (1982) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Altobella, 442 F. 2d 310, 316 (CA7 1971). There is, of course, no doubt that Congress has the authority to enact a law with the meaning the Court finds in § 2114 today. I am not, however, convinced that Congress actually intended to do so. I therefore respectfully dissent.

       See United States v. Reid, 517 F. 2d 953 (CA2 1975); United States v. Rivera, 513 F. 2d 519 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 948 (1975); United States v. Fernandez, 497 F. 2d 730 (CA9 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 990 (1975).

       Petitioners were also convicted of other crimes. See 718 F. 2d 1528 (1983).

       As Justice Jackson stated:
      “Resort to legislative history is only justified where the face of the Act is inescapably ambiguous, and then I think we should not go beyond Committee reports, which presumably are well considered and carefully prepared. . . . [T]o select casual statements from floor debates, not always distinguished for candor or accuracy, as a basis for making up our minds what law Congress intended to enact is to substitute ourselves for the Congress in one of its important functions.” Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 395-396 (1951) (concurring).

       Despite the Solicitor General’s view, Government prosecutors had relied on § 2114 outside of the postal context. See, e. g., United States v. O’Neil, 436 F. 2d 571 (CA9 1970) (Customs Service employee); United States v. Sherman, 421 F. 2d 198 (CA4) (military money custodian), cert. denied, 398 U. S. 914 (1970); Peek v. United States, 321 F. 2d 934 (CA9 1963) (same).

       We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that §2114 as we have read it does not fit well with other federal statutes, especially §2112. The statutes are related but not duplicitous. Section 2112 prohibits only consummated robberies of any person — whether lawful custodian or not— possessing any type of personal property of the United States. The difference between § 2112 and § 2114 is that the latter is specifically directed to authorized custodians, and protects them against assaults accompanying both attempted and completed robberies. Thus the statutes complement each other.

       Act of Feb. 20, 1792, ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat. 232.

       That section provided in pertinent part:
      “That if any person or persons shall rob any carrier of the mail of the United States, of such mail, or if any person shall rob the mail, in which letters are sent to be conveyed by post, of any letter or packet, or shall steal such mail, or shall steal and take from or out of the same, or from or out of any post-office, any letter or packet, such offender or offenders shall, on conviction thereof, suffer death.” § 17, 1 Stat. 237.

       See ch. 23, §17, 1 Stat. 361.

       Act of Mar. 3, 1797, ch. 19, §4, 1 Stat. 511.

       Act of Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 43, § 15, 1 Stat. 736-737 (up to 40 lashes and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years for first mail-robbery conviction; death for first mail-robbery conviction, if wounding the carrier or placing his life in danger by the use of a dangerous weapon; death for second mail-robbery conviction; up to 30 lashes or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for attempted robbery of the mails).

       Act of Apr. 30,1810, ch. 37, § 19, 2 Stat. 598 (up to three years’ imprisonment for attempted robbery of the mails by assaulting, shooting, or threatening the custodian with a dangerous weapon).

       Act of Mar. 3, 1825, ch. 64, §22, 4 Stat. 108-109 (5 to 10 years’ imprisonment for first mail-robbery conviction; death for first mail-robbery conviction if the carrier of the mails was wounded or had his life put in danger by a dangerous weapon; death for second mail-robbery conviction).

       In 1872, Congress passed “An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department.” Act of June 8, 1872, eh. 335, §§ 1-327, 17 Stat. 283-330. Section 285 of the revision stated: “That any person who shall rob any carrier, agent, or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, or any part thereof, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor not less than five nor more than ten years; and if convicted a second time of a like offence, or if, in effecting such robbery the first time, the robber shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor for the term of his natural life.” 17 Stat. 320.
      In contrast to the single grouping of offenses related to mail robbery in previous statutes, the revision also contained a separate section for attempting to rob a mail carrier:
      “That any person who shall attempt to rob the mail by assaulting the person having custody thereof, shooting at him or his horse, or threatening him with dangerous weapons, and shall not effect such robbery, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor not less than two nor more than ten years.” §287, 17 Stat. 320.
      The Revised Statutes of 1878 contained the separate mail-robbery-related provisions, as renumbered. Rev. Stat. §§ 5472, 5473.

       In 1909 Congress codified the United States Penal Code, combined the two sections that related to robbery of the mails, and placed the single statute on mail robbery in the section entitled “Offenses Against Postal Service.” Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 197, 35 Stat. 1126. The section provided:
      “Whoever shall assault any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter or any part thereof, or shall rob any such person of such mail or any part thereof, shall, for a first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery, he shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned for twenty-five years.” Ibid.

      See 18 U. S. C. §320 (1934 ed., Supp. V).

       Congress’ attention was particularly called to the consolidation of the previous two sections and the establishment of a single 25-year penalty. The Report on S. 2982, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., stated:

        “This section is made up of two sections of the Revised Statutes. Under those sections, one committing robbery of the mails, or attempting to do so, and in doing or attempting to do which makes use of a dangerous weapon, is subject to imprisonment for life. This language has been omitted and the maximum imprisonment which may be imposed has been reduced to twenty-five years.” S. Rep. No. 10, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (1908) (Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Revision of the Laws).
      Throughout the discussion on the provision, Congress had no doubt that it was concerned with the mails. Id., at 1906 (“The offense intended to be reached by this provision is interfering with a person having custody of the mail”) (statement of Mr. Heyburn).

       See H. R. Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1935).

       The text of the letter stated:
      “The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 16th instant, requesting a report on H. R. 5360, a bill providing for punishment for the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Governnment moneys or property.
      “Assaults upon custodians of mail matter are punishable under section 197 of the Federal Penal Code (18 U. S. C. 320), which provides a penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment if the custodian is wounded or his life is put in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon. If the person assaulted is a custodian of Government funds (not mail) the maximum punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $5,000; and no penalty is provided for attempts to commit such crimes. Recent years have witnessed a substantial increase in crimes of the latter type and it is believed that section 197 of the Penal Code should be amended so as to bring within its provisions the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys. Legislation to this effect was recommended in the Postmaster General’s annual report for 1933 and two bills, H. R. 6546 and H. R. 7214, were introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee but neither bill was reported out by the committee. The recommendation for the passage of this legislation is renewed." H. R. Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1935).
      See also Hearings before Subcommittee No. 8 of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads on H. R. 154, 3252, 5049, 5162, 5360, 5370, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1935) (“What we want to say about this bill is the fact that when a bandit, at the point of a gun, holds up our postal employees and takes mail, we have a 25-year penalty for it, but if he comes into the post office and does the same thing and takes away only cash, we are unable to give him such a sentence”) (statement of K. P. Aldrich, Chief Post Office Inspector).

       79 Cong. Rec. 8205 (1935) (emphasis added). The discussion that led to the comment proceeded, in part, as follows:
      “Mr. DOBBINS. I do not believe that the recommittal of this bill would accomplish anything. It was rather thoroughly considered. It did not merely receive perfunctory consideration. I think the language to which objection was made the previous day when this bill was considered, while it may be unusual language, it has been in the statute a great many years. Since the objection was made the other day I have taken up the matter with the legal advisor and with the inspection force of the Post Office Department. They feel it would be extremely dangerous to change the language of the statute as it is now. As to new language being incorporated in the act, I see no objection to changing it in the manner suggested by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] at the last hearing of the Consent Calendar.
      “Mr. WOLCOTT. I stated at that time that I thought it was a very poorly drafted bill, and I had hoped the committee would redraft it and report it out. I do not insist upon my amendment so far as the penalty is concerned. I think it is a very bad way to leave legislation, making it mandatory upon a judge to give a particular sentence, and no more or no less. If the committee want it that way, however, I have no objection. I think, however, for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of our work here the language on page 1 should be amended.
      “Mr. DOBBINS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio objects to the 25-year penalty provision provided in this bill. The penalty clause is not new legislation. If this bill is not passed, the statute will still contain the mandatory 25-year penalty.
      “The only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials, the same as it now extends that protection to mail matter in the custody of postal officials. Aside from that it makes no change in the law. It just includes property of the United States in addition to mail matter which is protected; and let me say there are many custodians of postal stations who have a great amount of money in their custody but little mail; for instance in those substations where money orders are sold. If a bandit attacks those employees seeking that money, there is no way to prosecute
        the bandit under the present law, but if he is merely after a postal card or a letter he can be prosecuted.
      “I think this makes a salutory change in the law. It is advocated by the Post Office Department and it seems to me there ought to be no objection to it.” Ibid.

       The text of the statute read:
      “Whoever shall assault any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or any part thereof, or shall rob any such person of such mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, or any part thereof, shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he shall wound the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years.” Act of Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 694, 49 Stat. 867.

       The Court, ante, at 75-76, correctly states that § 320 was renumbered §2114 and transferred to the section of Title 18 entitled “Robbery and Burglary” in 1948. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 797.

       The earliest appeal using §2114 outside of a postal setting appears to be Peek v. United States, 321 F. 2d 934 (CA9 1963); it arose almost three decades after the 1935 amendment.

       Memorandum for United States in Hanahan v. United States, O. T. 1972, No. 72-6454, pp. 2-3 (footnotes omitted).

       That section provides:
      “Whoever robs another of any kind or description of personal property belonging to the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years.”

       The Government stated at oral argument that § 2114 was activated in this case instead of §2112 because the former section covers attempted robbery. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. However, in its brief the Government concedes that it was not without statutory relief because 18 U. S. C. § 111 prohibits assaults on Government employees or officials listed in 18 U. S. C. § 1114, which includes “any officer or employee of the Secret Service.” A conviction under § 111, if involving a deadly or dangerous weapon, carries a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment of 10 years, or both. Jose Garcia was convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. §111, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 718 F. 2d 1528, 1530 (1983).

       At oral argument, the Government stated that §2114 covers the robbery of a hammer that is Government property. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.

        Id., at 26.