« PreviousContinue »
No. 289, Misc. BOWEN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 192 F. 2d 515.
No. 302, Misc. SULLIVAN v. McGEE, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS. Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
No. 413, Misc. DARCY v. HEINZE, WARDEN. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, and Doris M. Maier, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent. Reported below: 194 F. 2d 664.
No. 418, Misc. Butz v. CIRCUIT COURT OF RANDOLPH County, ILLINOIS, ET AL. Circuit Court of Randolph County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 425, Misc. Dovico v. New YORK. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 279 App. Div. 621, 107 N. Y. S. 2d 571.
No. 427, Misc. Jones v. CITY OF NORFOLK. Supreme Court of Nebraska. Certiorari denied.
No. 431, Misc. KELEHER v. KELEHER. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied. James J. Laughlin for petitioner. Alvin L. Newmyer for respondent. Reported below: 89 U. S. App. D. C. 266, 192 F. 2d 601.
No. 435, Misc. KRUSE V. STANLEY. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 436, Misc. TASHKOFF v. HUDSPETH, WARDEN, ET AL. Supreme Court of Kansas. Certiorari denied.
No. 465, Misc. EDWARDS v. Ohio, ante, p. 936. Rehearing denied. Motion for stay of execution also denied.
May 12, 1952.
Per Curiam Decisions.
No. 666. SINGLETON v. UNITED STATES. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Per Curiam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is re versed. Greenberg v. United States, 343 U. S. 918; Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE REED dissent. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents from the action of the Court in reversing without oral argument. Lemuel B. Schofield for petitioner. Solicitor General Perlman for the United States. Reported below: 193 F. 2d 464.
No. 722. Tom's EXPRESS, INC. ET AL. v. DIVISION OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, OF OHIO. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissent. Taylor C. Burneson and J. E. Simpson for appellants. Reported below:
No. 731. SHEIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Per Curiam: The motion of Jack Garrett Scott for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the appellants is granted. The judgment is affirmed. Appellants pro se. Solicitor General Perl- . man, Daniel W. Knowlton and Edward M. Reidy for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission;
and John R. Norris and Frank Thompson, Jr. for the Interstate Common Carrier Council of Maryland, Inc., appellees. Reported below: 102 F. Supp. 320.
No. 334. GORDON, OFFICER IN CHARGE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, v. HEIKKINEN. The motion of petitioner to vacate and remand is denied.
No. 460, Misc. JONES v. Alvis, WARDEN, ET AL. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Certiorari Granted. (See No. 666, supra.)
No. 605. JOHNSON v. PORTLAND TRUST & Savings BANK. Supreme Court of Washington. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Clarence D. Phillips for respondent. Reported below: 39 Wash. 2d 960, 235 P. 2d 819.
No. 650. HARKNESS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; and
No. 651. HARKNESS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Philip S. Ehrlich, Albert A. Axelrod and R. J. Hecht for petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Slack and Harry Baum for respondent. Reported below: 193 F. 2d 655.
No. 668. BLACKFORD ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Kenneth C. West and Walter A. Raymond for petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General McInerney, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop for the United States. Reported below: 195 F. 2d 896.
No. 326, Misc. LEVITON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE Douglas are of the opinion certiorari should be granted. Memorandum filed by MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. Sidney Feldshuh for Leviton; John Logan O'Donnell for Markowitz; and David E. Scoll for Blumenfeld, petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General McInerney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Murry Lee Randall for the United States. Reported below: 193 F. 2d 848.
Memorandum of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.
This seems to me to be another instance where it becomes helpful to an understanding of the exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction in granting or denying certiorari, to indicate the kind of question that did not commend itself to at least four Justices as appropriate for review by this Court. Several questions were raised by the petition for certiorari. It suffices to indicate the nature of only one, which can be most helpfully conveyed by giving the views of the Court of Appeals and of the dissenting opinion. 193 F. 2d 848.
Speaking for that court, Judge Clark, with the concurrence of Chief Judge Swan, stated the matter thus:
“The third incident involved a newspaper article in the New York Times, December 14, 1949. This account falsely reported that the indictment covered some $9,500 worth of barbed wire; that Field, a Customs Bureau visa clerk who had received the eleventh and last fraudulent export declaration in this case and who was an important witness for the government, had been offered a $200 bribe by Leviton to suppress this evidence (Leviton had in fact purchased $44 worth of clothing as a gift for Field); and that the defendants were part of a much larger ‘ring. A copy of the newspaper containing the article was found in
Memorandum of FRANKFURTER, J.
the jury room. We do not think, however, that such a report, erroneous as it was, made a fair trial impossible. The judge gave very explicit instructions that the contents of the article were to be disregarded and went on to point out how the offenses set forth in the indictment differed from those described in the article. Trial by newspaper may be unfortunate, but it is not new and, unless the court accepts the standard judicial hypothesis that cautioning instructions are effective, criminal trials in the large metropolitan centers may well prove impossible. United States v. Keegan, supra, 2 Cir., 141 F.2d at page 258. Citations of the reporting media for contempt by publication are rare and the Supreme Court has stated that their activities in reporting criminal trials do not deprive the accused of a fair trial unless there is a ‘clear and present danger' that such will result. See Ex parte Craig, 2 Cir., 282 F. 138, affirmed 263 U.S. 255, 44 S.Ct. 103, 68 L.Ed. 293; Baltimore Radio Show v. State, Md., 67 A.2d 497, certiorari denied, with opinion by Frankfurter, J., Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 70 S.Ct. 252, 94 L.Ed. 562; Note, 59 Yale L. J. 534. Such was not the showing here." Id., at 857.
Judge Frank in dissent took this view of the question:
"On the second day of trial, the prosecutor held a ‘press conference after court. He told the newspaper reporters of matters which (so he later advised the court) they promised not to print. In the next morning's New York Times, there appeared a story, told with typical journalistic vigor, about 'export racketeers' who ‘poured $500,000 of commodities into European and South African black markets. The significance of the newspaper story was this: It professed to recount the testimony of a witness that Leviton, over the phone, had offered him a $200 bribe to withdraw from customs files a fraudulent declara