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.

After the prosecution had rested their case, it moved to strike the "false burglary" part of the indictment, which was opposed by the defense and by the court.

Circuit Judge John Weld Peck II.The basis for the reversal rests on the indictment, which reads,"6.

It was a further part of the scheme that (James Rual Miller) well knew that the alleged burglary was committed with his knowledge and consent for the purpose of obtaining the insurance proceeds."

Argued on January 16, 1985, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and announced its decision on April 1 of the same year.

The decision was based on the fact the Circuit Court of Appeal's decision was apparently contradictory to many other Fifth Amendment cases the Supreme Court had decided in the past, such as Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, stating, "Convictions generally have been sustained as long as the proof upon which they are based corresponds to an offense that was clearly set out in the indictment.

A part of the indictment unnecessary to and independent of the allegations of the offense proved may normally be treated as "a useless averment" that "may be ignored."

This decision however upheld the part of Bain which long said that, "nothing can be added to an indictment without the concurrence of the grand jury by which the bill was found" (as cited in United States v Norris,[5] 281 U.S. 619 (1930)).