## Facts

- J. B. Bright, a retired rural mail carrier, died in November 1974 leaving an estate valued at roughly $1.2 million.
- Bright had executed a 1965 will (later modified by a codicil). After Bright’s wife and another beneficiary died, Bright’s sister Allie Bright Baker and her children were the remaining beneficiaries under that will and also the heirs if Bright died intestate.
- After Bright’s death, the original 1965 will could not be found, and an intestate estate was opened in Mississippi chancery court with an administrator appointed.
- Louin Ray Bright (a relative of the decedent) and Edgar Lee Whitten (an attorney) later produced and filed a document purporting to be a newer will dated April 17, 1973.
- The purported 1973 will named Ray Bright as executor, and Bright selected Whitten as lawyer for the estate; defendants sought probate of the document and initiated customary probate steps, including a statutory notice to creditors.
- As part of the probate process, the court transmitted the creditors’ notice for publication in a local newspaper, and Whitten also mailed letters to individuals connected to the earlier estate proceedings (including Bright’s sister and the prior estate representatives) advising that a will had been found and requesting a meeting.
- When shown the purported will, Baker and her family became suspicious (including concerns about the signature, the naming of beneficiaries, and other irregularities) and contested the will; the contest ended in a settlement in which Baker paid a substantial amount.
- Federal prosecutors charged Bright and Whitten with mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2, based on the theory that defendants knowingly used a false will and related mailings to obtain money and control over estate assets.
- At trial, Whitten presented a lawyer as a character witness to testify to Whitten’s good reputation for honesty and integrity.
- On cross-examination, the government asked the character witness whether he had heard that (1) a local judge, (2) the DeSoto County Bar Association, and (3) the Mississippi State Bar Association had reprimanded Whitten within the prior year for unprofessional conduct; defense counsel objected, and the district court sustained each objection; the witness stated he had not heard of such matters.
- After the evidence closed, Whitten moved for a mistrial, arguing the questions were substantially prejudicial and unsupported; the government stated it could support its questions and offered to reopen the case or proceed by stipulation, but the district court denied a mistrial.
- The jury convicted both defendants; the district court gave supplemental instructions when the jury reported difficulty reaching a verdict, and defendants challenged those instructions on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find a scheme to defraud and use of the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
2. Whether the district court’s supplemental instruction to a deadlocked jury was impermissibly coercive.
3. Whether the government’s “have-you-heard” cross-examination of Whitten’s character witness about alleged professional reprimands was so prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 that the denial of a mistrial was reversible error.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendants knowingly pursued a fraudulent plan centered on the purported 1973 will and that the identified mailings were used to carry out that plan.
- The court held the supplemental jury instruction, considered in context, did not coerce jurors into surrendering honest convictions and therefore did not require reversal.
- The court held Whitten was not entitled to a mistrial based on the government’s character-witness questions, given the allowed scope of testing a reputation witness, the sustained objections, the witness’s answers, and the trial court’s discretion in assessing prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) use of the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme; the mailing need not itself contain false statements if it is incident to an important step in carrying out the plan.
- On review for sufficiency, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A supplemental “deadlock” (Allen-type) instruction is not reversible error if, in its full context, it encourages continued deliberation without pressuring jurors to abandon conscientiously held views solely to reach unanimity.
- When a defendant introduces reputation character evidence, the prosecution may test the character witness’s basis by asking good-faith “have-you-heard” questions about specific events bearing on the character trait, subject to the trial court’s control and Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
- Sustaining objections, the witness’s denial of awareness, and the overall trial record are factors in evaluating whether questions caused unfair prejudice requiring a mistrial.

## Conclusion

United States v. Bright upheld mail-fraud convictions arising from the filing and use of a purported later will and related probate communications, concluding that the evidence permitted the jury to find a knowing fraudulent scheme furthered through mailings, that the court’s deadlock instruction was not coercive, and that cross-examination of Whitten’s reputation witness about alleged professional discipline—followed by sustained objections and denials of awareness—did not create unfair prejudice requiring a mistrial.


United States v. Bright, 588 F.2d 504 (1979)