## Facts

- In late 1990, federal investigators examined absentee-voting practices in Pike County, Ohio, after complaints about irregularities.
- Betty Salisbury, a local Republican Party official, visited voters’ homes to solicit absentee voting and later to “assist” voters when ballot packets arrived.
- Trial testimony described Salisbury (often with a co-defendant) directing voters toward particular Republican candidates, including by reading candidate identification numbers while voters marked ballots.
- Witnesses also testified that Salisbury sometimes marked ballots herself, limited voters’ ability to view candidate choices, and helped complete absentee ballots for a voter and her out-of-state sons.
- Salisbury was charged with multiple offenses arising from absentee-ballot activity during the 1990 general election.
- At trial, she was acquitted on several counts; a conspiracy count resulted in a hung jury and was dismissed.
- The jury convicted Salisbury on one count of knowingly voting and assisting others in voting more than once in an election with federal candidates, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(e) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- The district court imposed an 18-month prison term, a $1,000 fine, and two years of supervised release.

## Issues

1. Whether the indictment and denial of a bill of particulars provided constitutionally adequate notice of the specific “more than once” voting conduct charged under 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(e).
2. Whether the government’s theory and proof fit § 1973i(e)’s requirement of voting (or aiding voting) “more than once,” as opposed to showing general absentee-ballot misconduct.
3. Whether admission of evidence and argument about broader, unrelated voting abuse in Pike County unfairly prejudiced the jury on the single remaining multiple-voting count.
4. Whether alleged juror contact with a government witness, combined with other trial errors, required relief.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Salisbury voted or aided a specific elector in voting more than once.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction and vacated the district court’s judgment.
- The court concluded that the charging and trial presentation failed to identify with adequate clarity which ballots, electors, or alleged “second” votes comprised the offense.
- The court held that the prosecution’s presentation risked conviction based on generalized suspicions of election misconduct rather than proof of a particular statutory violation.
- The court determined that prejudicial background evidence of unrelated county-wide voting abuse further undermined the fairness of the trial.
- The court found the government’s proof did not sufficiently establish a discrete, provable instance of “more than once” voting attributable to Salisbury under § 1973i(e).

## Legal Principles

- An indictment must provide sufficient specificity to inform the defendant of the charge, permit preparation of a defense, and protect against double jeopardy.
- A bill of particulars may be required when the indictment and discovery leave the defense actually surprised and substantially prejudiced as to the conduct at issue.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(e) requires proof that an identifiable person voted (or was aided to vote) more than once in an election involving federal candidates; generalized election improprieties are not a substitute for that element.
- Evidence of unrelated wrongdoing may be excluded when its primary effect is to invite guilt by association or to distract from whether the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Allegations of external juror influence must be examined for prejudicial effect, particularly where other errors cumulatively threaten trial fairness.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated Salisbury’s multiple-voting conviction because the government did not clearly charge or prove a specific instance of “more than once” voting under § 1973i(e), and the trial was further compromised by prejudicial evidence about unrelated voting abuse and other fairness concerns.


United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369 (6th Cir. 1993)