ARTICLE 3 SECTION 5 CASE 8 OF 11
“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the
US vs. BALLARD
FACTS:
1. Case: indictment in 12 counts for using and conspiring to use, the mails to defraud by
organizing and promoting the “I Am” movement.
a. That certain designated corporations were formed, literature distributed and
sold, funds solicited, and memberships in the movement sought “by means
of false and fraudulent representations, pretenses, and promises”
2. Guy W. Ballard: alias St. Germain, Jesus, George Washington, and Godfre Ray King
a. That Ballard was selected and designated by the alleged “ascertained
masters” as a divine messenger and that the words of the “ascended masters”
and the words of the alleged divine entity (St. Germain) would be transmitted
to mankind through him (Ballard).
b. Co-“divine messengers”: Edna W. Ballard and Donald Ballard
i. They all allegedly had healing powers, claiming to have cured
hundreds of persons afflicted with diseases and ailments
3. Allegation was that respondents’ doctrines, beliefs, and representations were false and
that they knew them to be false
4. Demurrer and motion to quash indictment filed claiming attack on religious beliefs of
respondents and restriction on their freedom of religion (denied by District Court)
a. HOWEVER, objections were raised re admission of evidence concerning
respondents’ religious beliefs and the narrowing of issue of the case to a
question of whether or not defendants honestly and in good faith believed
the representations set forth
5. DISTRICT COURT emphasized that question of whether or not the teachings and
representations were true is not the concern of the jury because it is immaterial what
the defendants preached or wrote or taught in their classes. [this is where it gets a bit
confusing pls bear with me I’m so sorry]
a. Counsel for defense agreed in this treatment of the matter but respondents
did not change their position after verdict and contend that the truth or verity
of their doctrines and beliefs should have been submitted to the jury
6. Motion for New Trial: contend that the withdrawal of these issues from the jury was
error because it was, in effect, an amendment of the indictment + appeal to overrule
demurrer and motion to quash + alleged error in disallowance of proof of the truth of
respondents’ religious doctrines or beliefs
7. CA: reversed judgment of conviction and granted new trial
a. That the restriction of issue to that of good faith was error and that it was
necessary to prove that some of the 18 representations schemed were false
b. One judge stated that question of truth was as prejudicial to the issue of
honest belief as to the issue of purposeful misrepresentation
8. HENCE CURRENT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ISSUES:
1. W/N question of truth of doctrine or beliefs should have been made issue of case NO
RULING:
1. WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE TRUTH OR VERITY OF RESPONDENTS’
RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY
a.
establishment of no sect.”
b. 1ST AMENDMENT has a dual aspect: (freedom to believe + freedom to act)
i. Forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or
practice of any form of worship
ii. Safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion
c. Men may believe what they cannot prove and they may not put to the proof
of their religious doctrines or beliefs
i. If one could be sent to jail because a jury found those teachings
false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom
d. CONCLUDE THAT DISTRICT COURT RULED PROPERLY WHEN IT
WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES
i. CASE REMANDED TO CA FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. SIDE RULING OF THE COURT BUT STILL RELEVANT
a. US argued that group of representations submitted to the jury were adequate
to constitute an offense under the Act and that they were supported by
requisite evidence.
i. That trial judge did not differentiate representations and referred
in the charge to the religious beliefs and doctrines as matters
withheld from the jury
ii. US contends that respondents acquiesced in withdrawal from the
jury of the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs and that their
consent bars them from insisting on a different course once that
turned out to be unsuccessful
iii. Also cited JOHNSON v. US: “apart from situations involving an
unfair trial, an appellate court will not grant a new trial to a defendant
on ground of improper introduction of evidence or improper comment by
prosecutor where defendant acquiesced in that course and made no
objection to it”
b. ALTHO COURT SAID THIS PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE APPLIED HERE
SINCE THE REAL OBJECTION OF RESPONDENTS IS NOT THAT
TRUTH OF THEIR DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BUT THAT THEIR DEMURRER AND
MOTION TO QUASH MADE CLEAR THEIR POSITION THAT THE
ISSUE SHOULD BE WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ON THE BASIS OF
1ST AMENDMENT.
c. Position of respondents was that court should have withheld from the jury
BOTH issue of truth and issue of good faith, asking for dismissal of the
ENTIRE indictment
i. That the truth of their doctrines or beliefs should have gone to the
jury when the question of good faith was submitted was merely an
alternative argument
ii. That they never forsook their position that the indictment be
dismissed and that none of it was good
iii. That respondents’ motion for new trial challenged the propriety of
the action of DC in withdrawing from the jury the issue of the truth
without also withdrawing the question of good faith