Stack v. Boyle

Last updated
Stack v. Boyle
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 18, 1951
Decided November 5, 1951
Full case nameLoretta Starvus Stack, et al. v. James J. Boyle, United States Marshal
Citations342 U.S. 1 ( more )
72 S. Ct. 1; 96 L. Ed. 3
Holding
Bail had been set unusually high for the defendants since there was no evidence that they would flee before the trial date, and was therefore in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson  · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark  · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
MajorityVinson, joined by Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton, Clark
ConcurrenceJackson, joined by Frankfurter
Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. VIII; Smith Act

Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the arrest of members of the Communist Party who were charged with conspiring to violate the Smith Act. The case regards the Eighth Amendment issue of excessive bail.

Contents

The District Court had set bail at the fixed amount of $50,000 (roughly $500,000 in 2017 [1] ) for each of the petitioners. This was an amount greater than that used with other serious crimes. The defendants moved to reduce bail, claiming that it was “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment. The defendants were detained in the custody of appellee, United States Marshal James J. Boyle. [2]

Overview

In 1951, 12 members of the Communist Party were arrested in the Southern District of California. Upon their arrest and on motion of the government to increase bail in the case of other petitioners, bail was fixed in the District Court for the Southern District of California at $50,000 for each person. [3] The petitioners then moved to reduce bail under the Eighth Amendment, claiming that it was excessive. In support of their motion, petitioners submitted statements as to their financial resources, family relationships, health, prior criminal records, and other information. The only evidence offered by the government was a record showing that four persons previously convicted under the Smith Act in the Southern District of New York had forfeited bail. Their request was denied. The petitioners then filed the same issue under habeas corpus in the same 9th District Court, whereupon their petition was further dismissed. Finally, a request for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States and granted.

Historical context

A typical anti-communist poster of the McCarthy era Is this tomorrow.jpg
A typical anti-communist poster of the McCarthy era

In the 1950s the United States experienced what is known as the Second Red Scare which lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s, during the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. During this period, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy led anti—communist investigations which included making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason; thousands of citizens were accused of being Communists or Communist sympathizers and became the subject of unlawful investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The Smith Act, also known as the Alien Registration Act was a 1940 act that set criminal penalties for “advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government” and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.

Defendants

Loretta Starvus Stack

A Connecticut native who moved to San Francisco after World War II, she worked as a waitress and bookkeeper. Stack was the party organizational secretary of the local Communist Party and was accused of inciting women to take up arms in support of Socialism. During the case hearing a witness testified that Stack learned to use a bayonet and won shooting prizes in Russia in 1932. After the Supreme Court ruling she left the Communist Party. In her later years she fought to improve bus service and organized a cooperative housing project. [4]

Al Richmond

Al Richmond helped found The Daily People's World which was a leftist newspaper in San Francisco, and he served as its executive editor. Later, Richmond said of the anti-Communist campaign of Senator Joseph McCarthy, "I think that a lot of people were silenced, and their withdrawal from social commitment extended long afterward." Richmond left the party in 1968 after his paper criticized the Soviet Union for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, though he remained a Marxist. His autobiography, "A Long View From The Left," was published in 1973. [5]

Dorothy Healey

Healey began as a member of the Young Communist League and later the Communist Party. She was appointed a deputy labor commissioner by Governor Culbert Olson in 1940 and served as the Chairman of the Los Angeles Communist Party (1945). In 1952, she was arrested under the Smith Act. She appeared on college campuses in support of the antiwar movement in the 1960s, and in 1969, she openly opposed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1969; she effectively removed herself from the Communist Party because of this. Following her formal resignation in 1973, she became active in the New American Movement and the Democratic Socialists of America. [6]

William Schneiderman

At age 16, William Schneiderman joined the Young Communist League and later became the chairman of the Communist Party of California for a quarter of a century. Suffering from chronic heart trouble, he stepped down as chairman of the California Communist Party in 1964. In 1982, Schneiderman wrote his autobiography, Dissent on Trial, chronicling his struggles as a lifelong political activist. [7] [8]

Rose Chernin Kusnitz

Rochele Chernin was born in 1901 in Chasnik, Russia. She was renamed Rose when she landed at Ellis Island in 1913. Chernin became executive secretary of the Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, which she founded in 1950. By 1957, the Supreme Court heard Yates v. United States , in which Rose Chernin was named. In a landmark decision, Chernin’s earlier conviction was overturned, which ruled the Smith Act unconstitutional. [9]

Albert J. Lima

California leader of the Communist Party. He spoke at the University of California at Berkeley in 1963, ending the school's 13-year ban on Communist speakers. He ran unsuccessfully twice as a Communist candidate for the House of Representatives. [10]

Other defendants

Philip Marshall Connelly, Ernest Otto Fox, Carl Rude Lambert, Henry Steinberg, Oleta O'Connor Yates, and Mary Bernadette Doyle, for which no information is available.

Issue

When bail for multiple defendants is set at a higher amount than is necessary to ensure their presence at trial, is this a violation of the Eighth Amendment?

Court ruling

Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Fred m vinson.jpg
Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson

The U.S. Supreme Court found "that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial.” It was determined that the $50,000 bail was excessive, given the lack of financial resources of the defendants and a lack of evidence that they were likely to flee before trial. Under the direction of Chief Justice Vinson, who delivered the opinion of the court, it was found that bail had “not been fixed by proper methods in this case.” [11]

Chief Justice Vinson summed up the Constitutional issue by stating: “It is not denied that bail for each petitioner has been fixed in a sum much higher than that usually imposed for offenses with like penalties and yet there has been no factual showing to justify such action in this case...Such conduct would inject into our own system of government the very principles of totalitarianism which Congress was seeking to guard against in passing the statute under which petitioners have been indicted.” [12]

Essentially, if a court sets an unusually high bail for multiple defendants, the court needs to have evidence regarding the situations of each defendant (whether they are considered a “flight risk”). Otherwise it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Significance

Bail law in the United States remained mostly unchanged until 1966. In 1966, the U.S. Congress passed the Bail Reform Act, which was designed to allow for the release of defendants with as little a financial strain as possible. President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a speech on the importance of the act, giving examples of how the bail system had harmed people in the past. “A man spent two months in jail before being acquitted. In that period, he lost his job, he lost his car, he lost his family -- it was split up. He did not find another job, following that, for four months.” [13] The next major revision to U.S. bail law came with the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which replaced its 1966 predecessor. The Bail Reform Act of 1966 had helped stop discrimination against the poor, but left loopholes open that let many allegedly dangerous people receive bail as long as they did not appear to be flight risks. This new act allowed for defendants to be held until trial if they are judged dangerous to the community. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment regulating forms of punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, the defendants could be punished.

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.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a United States citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land. In doing so, however, the court did not overturn the California Alien Land Laws as unconstitutional.

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger."

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling 7–2 that a 1919 California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This decision is considered a landmark in the history of First Amendment constitutional law, as it was one of the first cases where the Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to include a protection of the substance of the First Amendment, in this case symbolic speech or "expressive conduct", from state infringement.

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society. The Act was held to violate neither the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor its Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

The Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits excessive bail set in pre-trial detention. If a judge posts excessive bail, the defendant's lawyer may make a motion in court to lower the bail or appeal directly to a higher court.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.

Charlotte Anita Whitney

Charlotte Anita Whitney, best known as "Anita Whitney", was an American women's rights activist, political activist, suffragist, and early Communist Labor Party of America and Communist Party USA organizer in California.

United States constitutional criminal procedure United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders 1949–1958 series of trials against Communist Party leaders, held in New York

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).

Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.

Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290 (1961), was a 1961 United States Supreme Court case that reversed the felony conviction of a lower-echelon official of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

William V. Schneiderman was an American politician activist who was secretary for California in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and involved in two cases before the United States Supreme Court, Stack v. Boyle and Schneiderman v. United States.

Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving denaturalization. By a 5–3 vote, the justices rejected the federal government's attempt to denaturalize William Schneiderman, a self-avowed communist. The Court held that "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" proof was required to revoke citizenship; it determined that there was insufficient evidence that Schneiderman was not "attached to the principles of the Constitution" as required by federal law.

References

  1. ↑ "CPI Inflation Calculator". CPI Inflation Calculator. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
  2. ↑ "Stack v. Boyle Casebrief".
  3. ↑ Vinson, Fred M. "Chief Justice Vinson Delivered Opinion of the Court".
  4. ↑ "Loretta S. Stack Obituary". The LA Times. February 17, 2001.
  5. ↑ "Al Richmond, obituary". The New York Times. November 9, 1987.. Retrieved 10 June 2014.
  6. ↑ McLellan, Dennis (August 8, 2006). "Dorothy Healey Obituary". The LA Times.
  7. ↑ "William Shneiderman". The Chicago Tribune. February 1, 1985.
  8. ↑ "William Schneiderman".
  9. ↑ "Rose Chernin Biography".
  10. ↑ "Albert J. Lima". The New York Times. June 13, 1989.
  11. ↑ "Chief Justice Vinson Delivered Court Opinion" (PDF).
  12. ↑ "Chief Justice Vinson Delivered Court Opinion" (PDF).
  13. ↑ Johnson, Lyndon B. "Remarks at the Signing of the Bail Reform Act of 1966".
  14. ↑ Silverman, Jacob (2007-02-05). "How Bail Works". HowStuffWorks.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.