Sacher v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued January 9, 1952 Decided March 10, 1952 | |
Full case name | Sacher v. United States |
Citations | 343 U.S. 1 ( more ) 72 S. Ct. 451; 96 L. Ed. 717; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2342 |
Case history | |
Prior | United States v. Sacher, 9 F.R.D. 394 (S.D.N.Y. 1949); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 182 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1950). |
Subsequent | Petition for rehearing denied, 343 U.S. 931(1952). |
Holding | |
The Court upheld the contempt of court charges issued by the lower court judge against five defense attorneys. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Jackson, joined by Vinson, Reed, Burton, Minton |
Dissent | Black |
Dissent | Frankfurter |
Dissent | Douglas |
Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the convictions of five attorneys for contempt of court. [1] [2]
The five attorneys who volunteered to defend the communists in the Smith Act trial of 1949 were familiar with leftist causes and personally supported the defendants' rights to espouse communist views. They were Abraham Isserman, George W. Crockett, Jr., Richard Gladstein, Harry Sacher, and Louis F. McCabe. [3] [4] Defendant Eugene Dennis represented himself. The ACLU was dominated by anti-communist leaders during the 1940s, and did not enthusiastically support persons indicted under the Smith Act. However, the ACLU did provide an amicus brief for the Foley Square defendants, endorsing a motion for dismissal. [5]
The defense deliberately antagonized the judge by making a large number of objections and motions, [6] which led to numerous bitter engagements between the attorneys and Judge Medina. [7] Out of the chaos, an atmosphere of "mutual hostility" arose between the judge and attorneys. [8] Medina came to believe that the defense attorneys were using the trial as an opportunity to publicize communist propaganda, and that they deliberately disrupted the trial using any means they could. [9] Judge Medina attempted to maintain order by removing defendants who were out of order. In the course of the trial, Medina sent five of the defendants to jail for outbursts, including Hall because he shouted "I've heard more law in a Kangaroo court", and Winston –an African American –for shouting "more than five thousand Negroes have been lynched in this country". [10] Several times in July and August, the judge held defense attorneys in contempt of court, and told them their punishment would be meted out upon conclusion of the trial. [11]
Legal scholar Michal Belknap writes that Medina was "unfriendly" to the defense, and that "there is reason to believe that Medina was biased against the defendants", citing a statement Medina made during pretrial activity: "If we let them do that sort of thing [postpone the trial start], they'll destroy the government". [12] Medina's hostility towards the defense may have been exacerbated by the fact that another federal judge had recently died of a heart attack during a similar trial involving the Smith Act; [9] [13] and Medina came to believe that the defense was deliberately trying to provoke him with the goal of achieving a mistrial. [14] Belknap asserts that the defendants could "insist with complete justification that they were the targets of a political prosecution", and that "rather than attempting to prove eleven individuals guilty of criminal conduct, the prosecution mounted an attack on the CPUSA." [15] Legal scholar Arthur Sabin writes that one of the jurors stated that "we must fight communism to the death" and spoke of his desire to "hang those Commies". [16]
Immediately after the jury rendered a verdict, Medina turned to the defense attorneys saying he had some "unfinished business" and he held them in contempt of court, and sentenced all of them –including future Congressman George W. Crockett, Jr. –to jail terms ranging from 30 days to six months. [4] [17] The attorneys had no opportunity to respond, and were immediately handcuffed and led to jail. [18] [19]
The defense attorneys appealed their own contempt sentences, which were handed out by Judge Medina under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [20] The attorneys raised a variety of issues on appeal, including the alleged misconduct of the judge, and the allegation that they were deprived of due process because there was no hearing to evaluate the merits of the contempt charge. The attorneys also argued that such contempt convictions would prevent future defendants from obtaining counsel, because attorneys would be afraid of judicial retaliation. [1] [21] The attorneys' initial appeal to the federal appeals court was not successful: the court reviewed the Medina's actions, and reversed some specifications of contempt, but affirmed the convictions. [22] The attorneys then appealed to the Supreme Court which denied the initial petition, but later reconsidered and accepted the appeal. [23] The Supreme Court limited their review to the question "was the charge of contempt, as and when certified, one which the accusing judge was authorized under Rule 42(a) to determine and punish himself; or was it one to be adjudged and punished under Rule 42(b) only by a judge other than the accusing one and after notice, hearing, and opportunity to defend?". [1] The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Jackson, upheld the contempt sentences by a 5–3 vote. [24] Jackson's opinion stated that "summary punishment always, and rightly, is regarded with disfavor, and, if imposed in passion or pettiness, brings discredit to a court as certainly as the conduct it penalizes. But the very practical reasons which have led every system of law to vest a contempt power in one who presides over judicial proceedings also are the reasons which account for it being made summary." [1]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". The ACLU works through litigation and lobbying and it has over 1,200,000 members and an annual budget of over $300 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases when it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Legal support from the ACLU can take the form of direct legal representation or preparation of amicus curiae briefs expressing legal arguments when another law firm is already providing representation.
An Alford plea, in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. The test was replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohiode facto overruled Dennis.
The Scottsboro Boys were nine African-American teenagers, ages 12 to 19, accused in Alabama of raping two white women in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is commonly cited as an example of a miscarriage of justice in the United States legal system.
In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the critical stages of a prosecution.
The Trenton Six is the group name for six African-American defendants tried for murder of an elderly white shopkeeper in January 1948 in Trenton, New Jersey. The six young men were convicted in August 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder and sentenced to death.
Harold Raymond Medina was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and previously was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906), was a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to a lynching in Chattanooga, Tennessee. As of 2021, it remains the only Supreme Court criminal trial in history.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process.
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. The court said the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated.
The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.
On March 19, 1906 a young African American man named Ed Johnson was murdered by a lynch mob in his home town of Chattanooga, Tennessee. He had been sentenced to death for the rape of Nevada Taylor, but Justice John Marshall Harlan of the United States Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution. To prevent delay or avoidance of execution, a mob broke into the jail where Johnson was held and lynched him.
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that is against due process, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.
The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders in New York City from 1949 to 1958 were the result of US federal government prosecutions in the postwar period and during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party. Appeals from these trials reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on issues in Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).
Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961), was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the conviction of Junius Scales for violating of the Smith Act on the basis on his membership in the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).
Abraham J. Isserman was an American lawyer and activist who defended Gerhart Eisler in 1947 and CPUSA leaders in the Foley Square trial (1949): he was found in contempt of court by Judge Harold Medina, sentenced to four months in jail (1952), and disbarred.
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified how well-informed a defendant had to be to waive their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The defendant in this case had waived his right to counsel and pled guilty to drunk driving, and then had been convicted of drunk driving twice more, with sentences increasing as his convictions piled up. He argued that the judge in the first case had not explained that multiple drunk driving convictions would lead to more severe sentences, so his waiver of counsel had been invalid. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that the judge's warnings had been adequate, and the defendants' waiver was "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent."