KOTTEAKOS v. UNITED STATES Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendants were convicted of one large conspiracy, but the evidence showed multiple separate conspiracies linked only by a common central figure. The Court reversed, finding this “variance” was a prejudicial error that affected the defendants’ substantial rights by creating a risk of guilt transference.
Legal Significance: Establishes the “spokes on a wheel” analogy for conspiracy and sets the standard for harmless error analysis, holding that a variance between indictment and proof is prejudicial when it creates a substantial risk of guilt transference in a mass trial.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The government indicted thirty-two defendants, including the petitioners, for a single conspiracy to defraud the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) by submitting fraudulent loan applications. The government’s evidence established that Simon Brown was the central figure, acting as a broker for numerous individuals seeking these loans. However, the proof did not show a single, overarching agreement among all defendants. Instead, it revealed at least eight separate and independent conspiracies, each consisting of Brown and a different group of individuals. The petitioners, Kotteakos and Regenbogen, were involved in one such group. There was no evidence connecting the various groups to each other; their only common link was their independent dealings with Brown. The government conceded this variance between the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the multiple conspiracies proven at trial. The petitioners were convicted of the single conspiracy, and the appellate court affirmed, deeming the variance harmless error.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a variance between an indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof establishing multiple, separate conspiracies linked only by a central figure constitute prejudicial error affecting the defendants’ substantial rights?
Yes. The conviction is reversed. The variance between the single conspiracy charged Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat c
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a variance between an indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof establishing multiple, separate conspiracies linked only by a central figure constitute prejudicial error affecting the defendants’ substantial rights?
Conclusion
Kotteakos sets a crucial limit on the harmless error doctrine in conspiracy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequ
Legal Rule
A variance between the indictment and the proof is reversible error if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Legal Analysis
The Court distinguished this case from *Berger v. United States*, which had Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A variance between an indictment charging one conspiracy and proof of