# Yates v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 17, 1957 · 354 U.S. 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421480

## Case

- **Full name:** YATES Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 17, 1957
- **Citations:** 354 U.S. 298; 77 S. Ct. 1064; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1356; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 657
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Burton
- **Judges:** Harlan, Burton, Black, Clark, Brennan, Whittaker, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 1,057 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421480

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that when a jury has been instructed on two legal theories, one of which is legally inadequate, the conviction must be reversed if it is not possible to determine whether the jury convicted on the legally adequate, or inadequate, theory
- stating that “we think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected”
- holding that a conviction must be reversed if the evidence in the record supports a legally impermissible ground as well as a legally permissible one and "it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected"
- holding that there is constitutional error when two different theories are submitted to a jury that returns a general verdict of guilty and at least one of the theories was legally insufficient
- finding that constitutional error occurs when a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt and returns a general verdict that may rest on a legally invalid theory

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Burton,
concurring in the result.
I agree with the result reached by the Court, and with the opinion of the Court except as to its interpretation of the term “organize” as used in the Smith Act. As to that, I agree with the interpretation given it by the Court of Appeals. 225 F. 2d 146 .
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421480. Public record. Not legal advice.