## Facts

- A. Alfred Taubman led Sotheby’s, and Sir Anthony Tennant led Christie’s.
- In the 1990s, Sotheby’s and Christie’s together controlled about 95% of the high-end art auction market.
- The United States investigated the auction houses and found evidence suggesting Taubman and Tennant agreed to reduce competition by fixing commission practices.
- Between 1993 and 1996, Taubman and Tennant met approximately 12 times.
- During this period, Sotheby’s and Christie’s adopted identical commission rates for buyers and sellers and maintained identical lists of favored buyers who would not be charged commission fees.
- Meeting summaries described discussions between Taubman and Tennant about commission rates.
- Taubman and Tennant were charged with conspiring to fix commission rates in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- At Taubman’s trial, the jury was instructed it must find that Taubman knowingly and intentionally joined the charged conspiracy.
- The jury found Taubman guilty.
- Taubman moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing the jury was not properly instructed that his meetings with Tennant could have occurred for lawful reasons.

## Issues

1. Whether Taubman was entitled to a new trial under Rule 33 because the jury instructions did not sufficiently explain that competitor meetings can occur for acceptable reasons and are not criminal unless tied to a knowing agreement to fix commissions.

## Decision

- The court denied Taubman’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
- The court concluded the charge, read as a whole, required the jury to find a knowing and intentional agreement to fix commission rates and did not permit conviction based merely on meetings or contact between the auction-house leaders.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 33 new trial is an extraordinary remedy; it is granted only when letting the verdict stand would result in a serious injustice.
- Under Sherman Act § 1, criminal liability for price fixing requires proof of an agreement (a conspiracy) and that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined it.
- Competitor communications, standing alone, are not enough; the jury must be told it cannot convict unless it finds a knowing agreement to restrain price competition.
- A defendant is not entitled to jury instructions in the exact wording requested as long as the instructions, taken as a whole, correctly state the law and allow the jury to consider the defense theory.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was instructed that it had to find Taubman knowingly and intentionally joined a conspiracy to fix commission rates—and not merely that he met with a competitor—the court found no basis to disturb the verdict and denied the motion for a new trial.


United States v. Taubman, 2002 WL 54873 (2002)