## Facts

- Ellis E. Neder, Jr. was prosecuted in federal court for fraudulent real estate and loan transactions and related tax offenses.
- He was convicted of filing false federal income tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and of mail, wire, and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344).
- At trial, the court removed the question of “materiality” from the jury on certain counts by deciding it itself, and on other fraud counts did not instruct the jury on materiality.
- The court of appeals treated the omission of a materiality element on the tax counts as instructional error but affirmed under harmless-error review, reasoning materiality was not genuinely contested.
- The court of appeals also held that materiality was not an element of the “scheme or artifice to defraud” language in the federal mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes.

## Issues

1. Whether omission of an element from jury instructions is subject to harmless-error review under the Chapman standard, or instead requires automatic reversal.
2. Whether materiality is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the convictions.
- The Court held that Chapman harmless-error review applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of the offense.
- The Court concluded the omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on this record because the omitted element (materiality) was supported by overwhelming evidence and was not meaningfully disputed.
- The Court held that materiality is an element of the federal mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes.
- Justice Stevens concurred in part and in the judgment, agreeing with affirmance but cautioning against broad assumptions about harmlessness in omitted-element cases.
- Justice Scalia concurred in part and dissented in part (joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg), agreeing materiality is an element but arguing that withholding any element from the jury is structural error requiring reversal.

## Legal Principles

- An omitted-element jury instruction is a “trial error,” not a structural defect, and may be reviewed for harmlessness under Chapman.
- Under Chapman, the question is whether the court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the instructional error did not contribute to the verdict.
- If the omitted element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, an appellate court may find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The phrase “scheme or artifice to defraud” in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1344 incorporates the common-law meaning of fraud, which includes a materiality requirement, absent contrary statutory direction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that failure to submit an element to the jury is subject to harmless-error review and affirmed because the materiality omission did not affect the verdict; it also clarified that materiality is an implied element of federal mail, wire, and bank fraud.


Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)