322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148
Respondents Edna W. Ballard and Donald Ballard were indicted along with Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, in the District Court on twelve counts for using and conspiring to use the mails to defraud by organizing and promoting the I Am movement.1 The indictment charged a scheme to defraud through false and fraudulent representations, pretenses and promises set forth in eighteen specific allegations concerning the respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs.2
The representations included claims that Guy W. Ballard had been selected by Saint Germain as a divine messenger through whom the words of ascended masters would be transmitted to mankind.3 They also claimed that the three named individuals had the power to heal persons of ailments and diseases and had in fact cured hundreds of persons.4 Each representation was followed by the charge that the respondents well knew it was false and made with intent to cheat and defraud persons of money and property.5
Early in the trial the District Court, after conferring with counsel, confined the issues to the question of the good faith of the respondents.6 The court instructed the jury that whether the religious representations were true or not was not its concern.7 The court further instructed that the issue was whether the defendants honestly and in good faith believed those things.89 The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the respondents.10
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction and granted a new trial on the ground that the restriction of the issue to good faith was error because it was necessary to prove that some of the representations which respondents schemed to make were false.11 The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari because of the importance of the question presented.12
Whether the truth or verity of respondents’ religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury?13
No. The District Court properly confined the issues to the question of the good faith of the respondents.17 After conferring with counsel it instructed the jury that whether the religious representations were true or not was not its concern.18 The issue was whether the defendants honestly and in good faith believed those things. The indictment charged a scheme to defraud through eighteen specific false representations concerning religious doctrines.19
These included that Guy W. Ballard had been selected by Saint Germain as a divine messenger and that the three named individuals had the power to heal persons of ailments and diseases and had in fact cured hundreds of persons.20 The First Amendment protects against jury determination of the truth or falsity of such beliefs because the representations related directly to religious doctrines or beliefs.21
The truth or verity of respondents’ religious doctrines or beliefs should not have been submitted to the jury and the District Court ruled properly when it withheld those questions.22
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Jackson would have dismissed the indictment outright.23 He reasoned that it is impossible to separate an issue as to what is believed from considerations as to what is believable.24 Any inquiry into intellectual honesty in religion raises profound psychological problems that juries cannot reliably resolve.25 Religious experiences cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight.26
Such prosecutions risk religious persecution.27 He concluded that the price of freedom of religion is that courts must tolerate a good deal of rubbish in religious claims.28 The real harm is on the mental and spiritual plane rather than merely financial.29
Whether respondents acquiesced in the withdrawal from the jury of the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs in a manner that bars their challenge on appeal?30
Acquiescence in the withdrawal of an issue from the jury does not bar a defendant from challenging that action on appeal.31 This is true where the defendant consistently maintained that the entire indictment should have been dismissed on constitutional grounds.32 The partial withdrawal is treated only as an alternative position.33
No. Although counsel for respondents acquiesced in the District Court’s treatment of the matter during trial and made no objection to the instructions limiting the case to good faith, the demurrer and motion to quash made clear their position.34 The indictment attacked religious beliefs in violation of the Constitution.35 Respondents sought dismissal of the entire indictment.36 Respondents never forsook their position that none of the indictment was good.37
Their motion for new trial challenged the withdrawal of the truth issue without also withdrawing the good faith question.38
Respondents did not acquiesce in a manner that bars their challenge on appeal and the rule from Johnson v. United States does not prevent them from reasserting that no part of the indictment should have been submitted to the jury.39
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Roberts And Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Chief Justice Stone concluded that the parties with the advice of counsel assented to withdrawal of the truth issue.40 Such assent did not constitute an amendment of the indictment.41 The indictment charged both falsity and lack of good faith belief.42
The jury convicted on ample evidence of lack of honest belief.43 Therefore the conviction should be reinstated.44 He maintained that the state of one’s mind is a fact capable of fraudulent misrepresentation just as one’s physical condition is.45
Whether the Circuit Court of Appeals should consider other grounds for reversal urged by the respondents before the Supreme Court addresses remaining constitutional issues?46
When the Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach other grounds urged by respondents and those questions were not fully presented to the Supreme Court, the cause should be remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals so that it may pass on the questions reserved.47
Yes. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed solely on the ground that the truth issue should have gone to the jury.48 It did not reach the other distinct grounds for reversal urged by respondents.49 Because attention was centered on the religious belief issues, the remaining questions were not fully presented in the briefs or oral argument before the Supreme Court.50 Remand allows the Circuit Court of Appeals to address those questions first.51
The cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings so that it may pass on the questions reserved before any remaining constitutional issues are addressed.52