United States v. Miller
The court held that the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved.
471 U.S. 130 · No. 83-1750 · 1984 term · Burger Court
Decided Apr 1, 1985 · argued Jan 16, 1985
Criminal procedure · Miscellaneous criminal procedure
Overruled precedent
Majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed. United States won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. James Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved. This case partly overruled Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), in that a grand jury's indictment is not "final", and its scope for conviction may be narrowed by the prosecution during trial. This case allows for prosecutors to simply prove a defendant committed criminal acts at least mentioned in an indictment, but need not prove all the allegations in their entirety.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1984 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Thurgood MarshallWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: Lewis Powell.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- MillerDefendant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fifth Amendment (grand jury)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Precedent
- The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 1, 1985DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: reversed. United States won.
- Jan 16, 1985ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: vacated.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous criminal procedure, newest first.
- Wolford v. Lopez146 S. Ct. 2032Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2032Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. RahimiLandmark · Second Amendment rights144 S. Ct. 1889Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1889Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States599 U.S. 236Jun 15, 2023 · 599 U.S. 236Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Reed v. Goertz598 U.S. 230Apr 19, 2023 · 598 U.S. 230Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. BruenLandmark · Second Amendment rights141 S. Ct. 2111Jun 23, 2022 · 141 S. Ct. 2111Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights6–36–3 band
- Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.Landmark · Second Amendment rights561 U.S. 742Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 742Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- District of Columbia v. HellerLandmark · Second Amendment rights554 U.S. 570Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 570Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- Charles B. Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al., v. Richard A. French, et al.530 U.S. 327Jun 19, 2000 · 530 U.S. 327Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. Texas529 U.S. 513May 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 513Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Patrick Ramirez v. Indiana471 U.S. 147Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 147Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- Waller v. Georgia467 U.S. 39May 21, 1984 · 467 U.S. 39Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Payne v. Madigan, Warden366 U.S. 761Jun 5, 1961 · 366 U.S. 761Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- New York v. O'Neill359 U.S. 1Mar 2, 1959 · 359 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Sharpnack355 U.S. 286Jan 13, 1958 · 355 U.S. 286Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Dowd, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Cook340 U.S. 206Jan 2, 1951 · 340 U.S. 206Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haupt v. United States330 U.S. 631Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 631Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.