US v.

Ballard
322 US 78
April 24, 1944
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari, to review the Court of Appeals reversal of convictions of
the respondents for conspiring to use mails to defraud in organizing and promoting their I Am
movement. They were alleged to have designed corporations, distributed literature and solicited
funds and memberships in their I Am movement, by means of false representations. These were
covered by their religious doctrines and beliefs, believing that Guy W. Ballard (now deceased),
Jesus, George Washington and Godfre Ray King had been selected by ascertained masters, that
Ballard is a divine messenger of the divine entity, along with his relatives Edna and Donald
Ballard. They believe to have the power to heal persons of diseases, presenting hundreds of
people who were in fact cured by them. The accusation presented that the respondents well knew
the falsity of their representations, to obtain money, property and other valuable things. The
respondents filed a motion to quash the information, invoking their right to the free exercise of
their religion, which was subsequently denied, the case being confined to the question of good
faith of the respondents. The argument of the Trial Court was that it is not within the power of
the courts to concern themselves with the religious beliefs of the defendants, and whether their
beliefs are true or not, and if they really believed in good faith in their alleged false
representations, then they should be acquitted. On appeal, the respondents stated that the truth of
their beliefs should have been submitted to the jury, for the withdrawal of that issue would
amend their indictment. The CA remanding the case again to the lower court stating that the
restriction of the issue into that of good faith was erroneous and that it was necessary to prove
that at least some of the representations they made were false, reversed the conviction, thus this
petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the issue with regard to the truth or falsity of
the religious beliefs and doctrines of the respondents should have been submitted to the
jury.
HELD:
1. Yes.
The petitioner contends that the issue withdrawn with regard to the truth or falsity of the
representations were those in relation to the religious concepts or beliefs of the respondents, and
that there were representations which fell under a different category. It is argued that there was
enough evidence to convict the respondents. The Court stated that all of the representations
included in the indictment which were related to the religious beliefs of the respondents were
withheld from the jury, and that the trial court confined the issue to the good faith of the
Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

respondents, whether they believed in their representations. Nowhere were there any separate
representations submitted to the jury falling under a different category.
The petitioner argues that the respondents acquiesced in the withdrawal of the issue which
therefore bars them from questioning it, but that principle cannot be applied here for the
objection of the respondents is not the truth of their religious beliefs, but that the trial court
should have not delved into the issue with regard to their religious beliefs, in respect to their right
to the free exercise of religion, adding that the court should have gone the whole way and
withheld from the jury both the issue of the truth of their beliefs and even the issue of their good
faith. What they were asking was the dismissal of the entire indictment, so nothing prevents them
from asserting that no part of the indictment should have been submitted to the jury.
The CA ruled that the question of the truth of the representations should have been submitted
to the jury, and remanded the case for a new trial. The CA did not think that the indictment could
be properly construed as charging a scheme to defraud by means other than misrepresentations of
their religious beliefs, and that the withdrawal of the issue of the truth of their beliefs would
change the character of the crime charged. With regard to this, the Court does not agree with the
CA that the issue on the truth of their beliefs should have been submitted to the jury, for the First
Amendment secures that: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect to secure the freedom to exercise ones religion. This has
two concepts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. The second one can be regulated
but the first is basic in a society of free men. Men believe what they cannot prove and what some
believe may be incomprehensible to others. If one could be sent to jail because a jury found their
beliefs and teachings false, little would be left of religious freedom. The First Amendment does
not select any one group or type of religion preferred treatment, but puts all in the same position,
so the Trial Court was correct in withholding from the jury questions concerning the truth of the
beliefs of the respondents.
Respondents argue that the reversal of their conviction was justified on other grounds, but the
remaining questions cannot be entertained by the Court for questions of fact are reserved to the
lower courts, so the case is remanded to the CA for further proceedings.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio