Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute Archives logo
| HOME | HISTORY | PUBLICATIONS | DOCKETS | FINDING AIDS |

CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET
Vol. I, No. 4
April, 1956
$5.00 per year
Search in this volume

Case Number: 
Enter a specific case number or use * as wildcard, e.g., 303.15, 303.*

Case Title: 
Enter keywords from the title of a case, e.g., carpenters union

Case Description: 
Enter keywords from the description of a case, e.g., segregation school
   
ABOUT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET

The DOCKET is published 5 times each year, October to June, by the National Committee on Constitutional Rights and Liberties, Osmond K. Fraenkel, chairman, Ann Fagan Ginger, editor.

Concluded cases described in Vol. I, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 will not be mentioned in this or future issues. Pending cases in which there has been no change in status since the description in the last issue are listed here and marked with an *. Where a change has occurred, the facts will not be repeated but will be referred to by page and only new matter will appear in this and subsequent issues.

I. EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Corliss Lamont, Freedom is as Freedom Does—Civil Liberties Today, Horizon Press, NYC, 1956.

Law review articles:

Ralph F. Bischoff, Constitutional Law and Civil Rights, in 1955 Annual Survey of American Law, 31 N.Y.U.L.R. 60-92 (Jan., 1956).

Edmond Cahn, The Firstness of the First Amendment, 65 Yale L.J. 464-481 (Feb., 1956).

Thomas I. Emerson, The Doctrine of Prior Restraint, 20 Law and Contemporary Problems 648-671 (Autumn, 1955).

Joseph O'Meara, Freedom of Inquiry Versus Authority: Some Legal Aspects, 31 Notre Dame Lawyer 3-13 (Dec., 1955).

Alanson W. Willcox, Invasions of the First Amendment Through Conditional Public Spending, 41 Cornell L.Q. 12-56 (Fall, 1955).

10. Freedom of Speech

10.1. People ex rel. Hearn v. Muste, et al. (formerly entitled New York v. Parrilli, et al.) *
10.2. Reiss v. People of New York. (U.S.S.C., #779 Oct. Term, 1955.) Oct., 1954: App't walked back and forth on public sidewalk near Nassau County courthouse while courts in session wearing sign: "Special attention Litigants—avoid being `the next victim.' Don't try your case before a court that arranges fake trials and sells decisions. Nassau Citizens Committee." Arrested, convicted in Nassau County 1st Dist. Ct. of criminal contempt of court under NY Penal Law, Sec. 600(4-a); 3 mth. suspended sentence. Issues: 1) constitutionality of state statute making it misdemeanor to comment on courts and judges on public street within 200 feet of courthouses; 2) does this grant special immunity against comment and criticism to cts. and judges and interfere with First Amdt. rights. Appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.

Osmond K. Fraenkel, Esq., 120 Broadway; Mercedes Hoffmann, Esq., 165 Broadway, both of NYC.
10.3. Rev. Dawkins v. Station KGFJ. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County.) After Def.-radio station wrote Pl.-Negro minister a letter warning him his religious services would be taken off the air if he continued to discuss "racism", Pl. filed suit to enjoin Def. from censoring his radio sermons against racial segregation.

George L. Vaughan, Jr., Esq., Los Angeles.

And see cases at 30.
10.4. People of New York v. Carcel and Collazo. (NY Mag. Ct., Upper Manhattan.) Feb. 22: Defs. arrested while picketing and distributing leaflets on independence of Puerto Rico, freedom for political prisoners, on sidewalk entrance to UN grounds. March 14: during trial UN Deputy disavowed UN jurisdiction over sidewalk but appeared amicus to support prosecution. Charge: breach of peace (NY Penal Law, sec. 722(2)). Issues: jurisdiction of NYC over sidewalk; right to picket. Post-trial briefs submitted.

Conrad J. Lynn, Esq., 141 Broadway, NYC.

And see Rev. King (40.3).
- 68 -

10.21. U.S. v. UAW-CIO. (E.D. Mich, #35004.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1, 33. Motion to dismiss indictment granted by Fedl. Judge Picard, on authority and reasoning of U.S. v. C.I.O. (335 U.S. 106), U.S. v. Painters Local Union (172 F. 2d 854) and U.S. v. Construction and General Laborers Local Union (101 F. Supp. 869) that statute did not apply to Def. as payments charged in indictment did not constitute "expenditure in connection with" the elections, contemplated in the law. Ct. did not pass on constitutional attacks on act.

Harold A. Cranefield, U.A.W. General Counsel, 8000 E. Jefferson Ave., Detroit 14.
10.22. Wisconsin v. Joe Must Go Club of Wis., Inc. (Wis. S. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1. Cite: 70 NW 2d 681.
10.23. Wilson v. U.S. Civil Service Commission (DC DC, CA #2814-55.) Action brought to restrain Comm. from suspending Pl.-railway mail clerk for 90 days for alleged violation of Hatch Act because he wrote letter to newspaper criticizing Gov. Shivers of Texas. Dec. 1, 1955: Judge Youngdahl granted injunction, holding isolated expression of political opinion not prohibited by Hatch Act, which is aimed at political activity with organized group. Def.-Comm. filed notice of appeal; March 7: notice dismissed by stipulation of parties with Ct's approval.

Edward de Grazia, Esq., World Center Bldg., and Herbert J. Matler, Esq., both of Washington, D.C.
20. Freedom of Press

20.1. New York v. Hennacy. (NY Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1-2. Cite: 127 NE 2d 870.
20.3. Brattle Films, Inc. v. Comm'r of Public Safety. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.) (127 N.E. 2d 891, 1955.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2.

Law Review note in 35 Boston Univ. L.R. 588-596 (Nov., 1955).
20.3a. Holmby Production, Inc. v. Vaughn, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1. Cite: 350 U. S. 870.
20.5. Fla. ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, Sheriff. (Sup. Ct. Fla., #26158). *
20.6. U. S. v. Solow. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2. Feb. 20: Fedl. Judge Weinfeld overruled Def.'s motion to dismiss indictment.
20.7. Smith v. Byrd. (Miss. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 33. Cite: 830 So. 2d 172.
20.8. California v. Howard. Correct title: In re Howard. (Calif. 3d Dist. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 33-34. Cite: 136 A.C.A. 907, 289 P. 2d 537.
20.9. Tirone v. Ramsey Journal and Russo. (N.J. Super. Ct.) *
20.11. Butler v. Michigan. (U.S.S.C., #548 Oct. Term, 1955.) App't fined $100 for selling a book, "The Devil Rides Outside," under Mich. statute outlawing sale or distribution of books "containing obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious language" tending to incite minors to violent or immoral acts. Appeal raises question as to 1) vagueness of the state statute; 2) unconstitutional limitations on freedom of the press. Feb. 28: probable jurisdiction noted; to be argued Fall, 1956.

Manuel Lee Robbins, Esq., 30 Broad St., NYC; William G. Comb, Esq., Detroit, Michigan.
20.30. Capital Enterprise v. N.Y. Board of Regents. (NY Sup. Ct., App. Div.) To test whether NY film censorship law imposes prior restraint on expression, is unconstitutionally vague and taxes expression in the form of license charge, counsel for Pl. film co. conceded before App. Div. that film, "Mom and Dad," was "lustful and lecherous." NY Censor Bd. had found indecent a scene showing the birth of a child. NY Bd. of Regents sustained objection. April 5: App. Div. ordered Def.-State to license film because not indecent, did not rule on constitutionality of Act.

Ephraim S. London, Esq., 150 Broadway, NYC.
20.31. Times Film Corporation v. Chicago. (DC Ill., 55 C 1006, 1955.) Suit to enjoin Def.-City from interfering with showing of film, "The Game of Love" after Censorship Bd. refused permit. Referred to Master who reported favorably on picture and recommended holding ordinance unconstitutional. Ct. then convened advisory jury which found 11-1 that picture was obscene. March 21: Fedl. Judge Perry overruled Master; held terms "immoral" and "obscene" not vague and uncertain; held movie was immoral and obscene. Appeal to be filed.

Abner Mikva, Esq., 231 S. La Salle St., Chicago.
30. Freedom of Religion

30.1. People's Church of San Fernando Valley, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) *
30.2. First Methodist Church of San Leandro v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) and
30.3. First Unitarian Church of Berkeley v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2, 34. Record docketed March 15.
30.4. American Unitarian Assn., et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al. *

And see cases at 430.
30.5. Ilse Scaccio —Pet. for naturalization. (Imm. & Nat. Service—Wash.) *
30.6. Hughes v. Priest, U.S. Treasurer. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 52. On appeal from dismissal of complaint, Pl. added ground that Trial Judge Tamm is Roman Catholic and subject to Roman Catholic Canon Laws which allegedly state that: 1) Church is supernational national authority; 2) Church laws are binding without approval or sanction of civil rulers. Quoting alleged Nov. 5, 1949 statement of Pope: "When a state law conflicts with the Church's teaching, a Catholic jurist need not enforce it", Pl. contends action did not and could not have fair, impartial hearing before Judge Tamm or other Catholic judge. Appeal alleges $28,350,000. annual expenditure by U.S. for salaries and religious supplies of 993 Catholic, 2,371 Protestant, and 102 Jewish chaplains.
30.7. Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. of Alameda and City of Oakland. (Super. Ct., Alameda Co., #250074.) *
- 69 -

30.8. Textile Workers v. Lawtex Corp. and Belcraft Corp. (N.L.R.B.) Defs.-Dalton, Ga. corporations are charged before NLRB with unfair labor practices for having fired employees who belonged to "Church of God of the Union Assembly", a church which encouraged unionism as a way to Christian social justice. Bd. is investigating charges.
30.9. Rhea, et al. v. Sheriff McCullough, et al. (Wash. Super. Ct., Seattle.) Pl.-prisoner requested injunction to prohibit 19 evangelical religious organizations from conducting services to captive audiences in prison corridors and "tanks". Feb.: Judge Findley upheld prison rule limiting religious services to chapel where attendance is voluntary.

James J. McBride, Esq., 1524 17th Ave. N, Seattle.

Amicus brief filed by Wash. State A.C.L.U., by Kenneth A. Cox, Esq., 1510 Hoge Bldg., and Kenneth A. MacDonald, Esq., both of Seattle.
30.10. Carden v. Bland. (Tenn. Sup. Ct.) Pl. brought suit to stop compulsory reading of the Bible in public schools. March 9: Tenn. Sup. Ct. upheld constitutionality of state statute requiring daily Bible reading in public schools but warned teachers to avoid interpretation of Bible or conducting sectarian religious services. To be appealed.

Amicus brief filed by Am. Civil Liberties Union, by Kenneth Greenawalt, Esq., 1 Wall St., NYC.
40. Freedom of Assembly

40.2. White v. Anson. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 52. Cite: 350 U.S. 908.
40.3. Alabama v. Rev. King, et al. (Circuit Ct., Montgomery, Ala.) Feb. 22: 93 Negroes (including 25 Ministers) indicted for violation of Ala. Boycott Statute (1921) Title 18, Sec. 54: "Two or more persons, who, without just cause or legal excuse for so doing, enter into any combination, conspiracy, agreement, arrangement or understanding for the purpose of hindering, delaying or preventing any other persons, firms, corporation or association of persons from carrying on any lawful business, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Mar. 19: Cir. Judge Carter overruled Def.-King's demurrer; held statute constitutional. Mar. 19: Ct. found Def. guilty; fine $500 and $500 costs; fine and costs converted into jail sentences of 386 days (suspended after notice of appeal filed). Dr. King released on $1000 bond. 89 other Defs'. cases continued pending appeal of King conviction.

Arthur D. Shores, Esq., 1630-4 Ave., Birmingham, Ala.; Fred D. Gray, Chas. Langford, Esqs., Montgomery, Ala.; Orzell Bellingsley, Peter Hall, Esqs., Birmingham, Ala.; Eubank Tucker, Esq., Kentucky; Edmund Ragan, Esq., Chicago; Robert Carter, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 West 43rd St., NYC.

And see Parks (670.5).
100. Freedom of Association—Governmental limitations on organizations
110. Federal conspiracy indictments—Smith Act Law review note:
Post-Dennis Prosecutions Under the Smith Act, 31 Indiana L.J. 104-119 (Fall, 1955).
110.1. Yates, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #308.) *
110.2. Fujimoto, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9.) *
110.3. Wellman, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) (227 F. 2d 757.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3, 34, 52. U.S. Solicitor General filed statement with Court suggesting that petition for writ of certiorari be held in abeyance until after decisions in Yates (110.1), Mesarosh (110.5). App'ts filed reply urging that Wellman be heard with other 2 cases.
110.4. Huff, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9, #14320.) *
110.5. U. S. v. Mesarosh, et al. (U.S.S.C.) (223 F. 2d 449.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3, 52. Briefs due Aug. 26; to be argued Oct. 6.
110.6. Sentner, et al. v. U. S. (CA 8.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Briefs have been filed. Ct. denied App't's motion to postpone oral argument until U.S.S.C. decision in Yates (110.1) and Mesarosh (110.5). To be argued in May term.
110.7. U. S. v. Kuzma, et al. (CA 3.) *
110.8. U. S. v. Bary, et al. (CA 10.) *
110.9. U. S. v. Brandt, et al. (ND ED Ohio, #21076.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34, 52. Feb. 10: After lengthy deliberation, jury acquitted 4 Defs., convicted 6 Defs. March 23: 1 Def. sentenced to 3½ yrs., 5 Defs. to 5 yrs.
110.10. U. S. v. Silverman, et al. (DC Conn.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34, 52. Ct. accepted written testimony of 4 expert witnesses for defense (Broadus Mitchell, H. H. Wilson, Stringfellow Barr and Ralph S. Brown) on whether Def.'s advocacy constitutes a present danger (Gov't having waived cross-examination). March 29: Jury acquitted 1 Def.; convicted 6 Defs.; failed to agree re 1 Def. Sentencing: April 16.
110.12. U. S. v. Charney, et al. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34, 52. March 29: argument on motion for continuance till Fall, 1956 because: 1) Gov't seizure of Comm. Party offices and assets created atmosphere which makes fair jury trial difficult; 2) Comm. Party records necessary for defense impounded by Revenue Dep't; 3) Comm. Party moneys necessary for payment of defense impounded. Motion denied; April 9: trial opened.

Newman Levy, Esq., 55 Liberty St., Mary Kaufman, Esq., 201 W. 85th St., John M. Minton, Esq., 295 Madison Ave., Royal W. France, Esq., 40 Exchange Pl., all of NYC; and Prof. Charles Duncan, Howard University Law School, Frank D. Reeves, Esq., both of Washington, D.C.; Vincent Hallinan, Esq., 345 Franklin, San Francisco.
110.13. U. S. v. Mirabal, et al. (U.S.D.C., Puerto Rico.) *
120. Federal seditious conspiracy indictments—18 USC 2384

120.1. U. S. v. Lebroun, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Cite: 222 F. 2d 531, cert. den. 350 U. S. 876.
120.2. Castro, et al. v. U. S. (formerly entitled U. S. v. Valle, et al.) (U.S.S.C., #600 Misc., Oct. Term, 1955.) *
- 70 -

130. State anti-sedition indictments (post World War I statutes)
Law review note:

State Sedition Laws: Their scope and misapplication, 31 Indiana L. J. 270-285 (Winter, 1956).


130.1. Pennsylvania v. Nelson. (U.S.S.C.) (172 Pa. Super. Ct. 125; 92 A. 2d 431.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. April 3: U.S.S.C., by Warren, C.J., affirmed Pa. S. Ct. reversal of conviction (6-3), because: "* * * we find that Congress has occupied the field to the exclusion of parallel state legislation, that the dominant interest of the Fedl. Gov't precludes state intervention and that admr. of state acts would conflict with the operation of the Fedl. plan, * * *." "Taken as a whole," 1940 Smith Act, 1950 Internal Security Act, 1954 Communist Control Act, "evince a Congressional plan which makes it reasonable to determine that no room has been left for the states to supplement it. Therefore a state sedition statute is superseded regardless of whether it purports to supplement the Fedl. law."

"We are not unmindful of the risk of compounding punishments which would be created by finding concurrent state power. In our view of the case, we do not reach the question whether double or multiple punishment for the same overt acts directed against the U. S. has constitutional sanction. Without compelling indication to the contrary, we will not assume that Cong. intended to permit the possibility of double punishment." JJ. Reed, Burton, Minton dissented.
130.2. Pennsylvania v. Dolson and Onda. See Nelson (130.1).
130.3. Kentucky v. Braden, et al. (Ky. Sup. Ct.) *

And see S. End Federal Svgs. & Loan v. Roan, Braden and Wade. (640.3.)
130.4. Massachusetts v. Struik, et al. (Middlesex Sup. Ct., Crim. #40726, 40734, 40735.) *
130.5. Massachusetts v. Hood, et al. (Suffolk Cty. Sup. Ct.) *

See Nelson (130.1) and HIGHLIGHTS.
140. Federal registration provisions—Internal Security Act of 1950

140.1. Communist Party of U. S. v. Subversive Activities Control Board. (U.S.S.C. #48.) *

Amicus brief filed by Int'l Assn. of Democratic Lawyers, by D. N. Pritt, Q.C., Cloisters, Temple, London E.C.4, England, and Joe Nordmann, Avocat a la Cour d'appel de Paris, 19, Quai de Bourbon, Paris, France.
140.4. Brownell v. Labor Youth League. (CA DC.) For facts, argument until U.S.S.C. decision in C.P. v. S.A.C.B. see I DOCKET 5. Ct. granted Def.'s motion to postpone (140.1).
140.5. Brownell v. Jefferson School. (CA DC.) *
140.6. Brownell v. Civil Rights Congress. (SACB #106-53.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5-6. Jan. 6: Def.-organization dissolved at national convention. Feb. 10: argument on Liquidator's motion to dismiss petition and proceedings on ground, inter alia, they were rendered moot by said dissolution. Feb. 10: Def. filed exceptions to recommended decision of hearing officer, dated November 30, 1955 which concluded that Def. should be designated a Communist-front organization. Decision awaited on motion to dismiss and, if motion denied, on hearing officer's recommendation.
140.7. Brownell v. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Feb. 8: S.A.C.B. issued final order of registration against Resp. Petition for review filed in CA April 6.
140.8. Brownell v. California Labor School in San Francisco. (SACB.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Hearing closed mid-Feb. Decision reserved.
140.9. See 160.7.
140.10. Brownell v. Washington Pension Union. (SACB #114-55.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6, 35. March 8: Def. completed case and made final argument. Gov't to present 3 rebuttal witnesses. Examiner Cain to hand down recommended decision about June 1.
140.11. Brownell v. Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born. (SACB.) *
140.12. Brownell v. American Peace Crusade. (SACB #117-56.) For facts, see I DOCKET 35, 53. S.A.C.B. denied motion to dismiss on ground Def.-organization had dissolved. Motion of former officer Betty Haufrect to intervene granted. March 26: hearings started.

Joseph Forer, Esq., for Intervenor, 711 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C.
150. Federal proceedings under Communist Control Act of 1954

150.1. Brownell v. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers. (SACB.) *

And see Mine, Mill (165.1.)
150.2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Brownell. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6, 53. Appeal from judgment of dismissal argued before CA DC. April 5: CA affirmed dismissal because Pl. had not exhausted administrative remedies.
150.3. Brownell v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers. (SACB #119-56.) March 28: Motion for bill of particulars argued.
160. U. S. Attorney General's "listing" power under Executive Order 10450

160.1. National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell. (U.S.S.C. #496.) (225 F. 2d 552.) *

Law review note on decision of CA DC in 44 Georgetown L.J. 135-137 (Nov., 1955).
160.3. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship v. Brownell. (CA DC.) *
160.4. Assn. of Lithuanian Workers v. Brownell. (CA DC.) *
160.5. Brownell v. Natl. Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions, Inc. (Dept. of Justice.) *
- 71 -

160.6. Brownell v. Independent Socialist League. (Dept. of Justice.) *
160.7. Brownell v. Californians for the Bill of Rights. (Dept. of Justice.) *
165. N.L.R.B. decertification of Unions
Law review note on Farmer v. Int'l Fur & Leather Workers, 221 F. 2d 862 (CA DC, 1955), in 24 Geo. Wash'n L.R. 150-153 (Oct., 1955).
165.1. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers v. N.L.R.B. (CA DC.) (226 F. 2d 780.) For facts, see I DOCKET 36, 53.
165.2. Amalgamated Mcat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, AFLCIO, Successor to Intl. Fur & Leather Workers Union v. N.L.R.B. (formerly entitled N.L.R.B. v. Lannom Mfg. Co.) (U.S.S.C., No. 723.) For facts, see I DOCKET 36. Cite: 226 F. 2d 194. Issues: 1) Whether union may be retroactively deprived of its compliance status under sec. 9(h) on account of 1954 conviction of officer for having filed false affidavit; 2) whether loss of compliance may be carried into 1952, when 1950 affidavit (being effective to maintain compliance for only one year) was functus officio as to Union's compliance status, and such status was then based upon later affidavit not the subject of indictment or conviction; 3) whether such decompliance may be effectuated while conviction on 1950 affidavit is still on appeal; 4) whether CA 6 was not required to give effect to final judgment of DC DC, entered in action between Union and NLRB and affirmed by CA DC that the Union's compliance status was not affected by the conviction.

And see Gold (240.4).
170. State officials "listing" powers
See Nelson (130.1) and HIGHLIGHTS.
170.1. New Hampshire v. Uphaus (formerly listed as Reply of World Fellowship, Inc. and Dr. Uphaus to Report by Wyman, N.H. Atty. Genl.) (N. Hamp. Supreme Ct.) *

See cases at 301 and 390.
170.3. Tormey v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., Suffolk Co., Eq. #68546.) *
170.4. Luscomb v. Bowker. et al. (Mass. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co.) *
180. Other state actions against organizations

180.1. Green v. Javits. (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept., Sup. Ct.) (Green v. Clancy, 350 U. S. 910.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7, 36, 54. NYLJ March 30, p. 5: Ct. sent case back to Special Term to conduct hearing on whether or not Pl.-organization is "charity" under N.Y. Social Welfare Law, Art. 10; if it is not, sec. doesn't apply and Ct. cannot conduct examination.
180.2. Pennsylvania ex rel. Truscott v. Yiddisher Kultur Farband. (Pa. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7-8. Cite: 116 A 2d 555.
180.3. New York v. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Co.) *
180.4. State of La. ex rel. LeBlanc, Atty. Genl. v. Lewis, et al., and N.A.A.C.P. (19th Jud. Dist., Parish of E. Baton Rouge, La., #55899, Div. D.) Mar. 3: Atty. Gen. filed complaint v. NAACP and state officers under La. Rev. Stats. 401-409 (1924) which provides that "fraternal, charitable, benevolent, literary, scientific, athletic, military or social organization, or organization created for similar purposes" must file annually with Secy. of State full certified list of names, addresses of all members and officers in state, members and officers of all chapters; penalty for officers' failing to comply: 60 days-6 mos. Atty. Gen. charged that: "Defs. have conspired together to hold meetings and/or do other things and that such meetings and activities constitute offenses under Sec. 403": Every member prohibited from holding meetings or attending such organization's affairs unless such list filed; penalty $100 to $500 and/or 30 days to 6 mos. Atty. Gen. seeks prelim. & perm. injunction to dissolve state NAACP and all branches. Mar. 29: State Judge Lindsey granted Atty. Gen.'s motion for prelim. injnctn.; denied NAACP motion to remove case to Fedl. DC.

Alex L. Pitcher, Jr., Esq., 1501 East Blvd., Baton Rouge, La.; A. P. Tureaud, Sr., A. M. Tureaud, Jr., Esqs., 1821 Orleans Ave., Jessie N. Stone, Esq., Richard B. Millspaugh, Esq., all of New Orleans, La.

See Lewis, 180.5; and see Hall (610.8) and Bush (610.9).
180.5. Lewis et al. & N.A.A.C.P. v. LeBlanc, Atty. Genl. (D.C. La.) For facts, see LeBlanc (180.4.) Mar. 29: Fed. Judge Wright granted NAACP motion, issued order directing La. to show cause April 4 why injunction should not be issued preventing La. from pursuing LeBlanc (180.4) in state court. April 4: Fedl. Judge Wright held DC lacked power to remove injunction issued in LeBlanc (180.4); ordered Pl.-Atty. Genl. to stop all further proceedings against Def.-N.A.A.C.P. pending La. Sup. Ct. decision on appeal in LeBlanc.

And see Hall (610.8) and Bush (610.9).
180.6. N.A.A.C.P., a Corp. v. Eurc, Secy. of State, and Rodman, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Super. Ct., Wake County, N. Carolina, 8800 GD, D-614) Pl. sought declaratory judgment re: 1) Construction and validity of G.A.55-118 re civil penalty to foreign corps. engaged in business in N. Caro. for failure to file with Secy. of State copy of charter, list of members and officers; 2) construction and applicability of Art. 10, Chap. 120 of G.S. providing crim. penalty for failure to file report. Mar. 13: Ct. sustained Defs'. demurrer; held: 1) declaratory judgment re Art. 10, Chap. 120 would not settle controversy between parties; therefore dismissed complaint re crim. statute; 2) gave Pl. 20 days to reframe complaint re civil penalty omitting reference to crim. penalty, leaving only question of applicability of civil penalty and Pl.'s liability thereunder.

Conrad O. Pearson, Esq., 203½ E. Chapel Hill St., Durham, N. Carolina; Robert L. Carter and Thurgood Marshall, Esqs., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 143rd, NYC.
200. Freedom of Association—Governmental limitations on individuals
201. Federal membership indictments—Smith Act

201.2. U. S. v. Lightfoot. (U.S.S.C.) (228 F. 2d 861.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8, 54. March 26: certiorari granted.
- 72 -

201.3. U. S. v. Scales. (U. S. S. C.) (227 F. 2d 581.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8, 37, 54. March 26: certiorari granted.
201.4. U. S. v. Blumberg. (ED Pa.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8, 37. March 7: Def. convicted by jury after 5-week trial; awaiting sentence.
201.5. U. S. v. Noto. (NY Roch. Dist.) April 12: convicted; 5 yr. sentence.
201.6. U. S. v. Weiss. (ND Ill. ED.) *
201.7. U. S. v. Blum. (ND Ill. ED.) March 27: Def. arrested under Smith Act membership indictment.
201.8. U. S. v. Russo. (DC Mass.) March 29: Def. arrested under Smith Act membership indictment.
201.9. U. S. v. Hellman. (DC Mont.) April 5: Def. arrested under Smith Act membership indictment.
210. State anti-communist membership indictments
See Nelson (130.1) and HIGHLIGHTS.
210.1. Ala. v. Knox. (Ala. Ct. of App.) *
210.2. Feldman, et al. v. Ervin, Atty. Genl., et al. (SD Fla., Miami Div.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Cite: 128 F. Supp. 822.
210.3. Albertson v. Millard. (Mich. S. Ct.) *
210.4. Mass. v. Struik. (Middlesex Super. Ct., Crim. #40725.) *
210.5. Mass. v. Hood. (Suffolk Co., #11492; Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.) *

See Nelson (130.1) and HIGHLIGHTS.
220. "Loyalty-security" dismissals of government employees—UN, US, states, cities
Law review articles:

Lloyd K. Garrison, Some Observations on the Loyalty-Security Program, 23 Univ. of Chicago L.R. 1-11 (Autumn, 1955).

Dalmas H. Nelson, Public Employees and the Right to Engage in Political Activity, 9 Vanderbilt L.R. 27-50 (Dec., 1955).

Ivor L. M. Richardson, Problems in the Removal of Federal Civil Servants, 54 Michigan L.R. 219-252 (Dec., 1955).


220.1. Leff, Duberg and Wilcox v. Evans. (Before Adm. Trib. of ILO.) *
220.3. Service v. Bingham, et al. (formerly entitled Service v. Dulles, et al.) (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9. Argued April 13.
220.5. Kutcher v. Higley. (CA DC.) *
220.6. Cole v. Young. (U.S.S.C.) (226 F. 2d 337.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9. Argued in U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 6; decision reserved.

Law review note on decision of CA DC in 44 Georgetown L.J. 132-135 (Nov., 1955).
220.7. Berman v. Summerfield. (DC DC, #4475-55.) *
220.8. Liner v. Summerfield. (DC DC, #4473-55.) *
220.9. Re Prof. Albert Sprague Coolidge. (Library of Congress.) Mrs. Sprague, mother of the professor, a Harvard University Chemistry lecturer, had set up a $600,000 Library of Congress foundation to promote chamber music. He was designated by Librarian of Congress as an advisor to the foundation, a post paying nominal salary of $250 a year, and requiring a non-communist oath and listing of organizational affiliations. His appointment was then rejected, without a hearing, on ground that his association with N. Am. Comm. to Aid Spanish Democracy, on the Atty. Gen'l's list, made his appointment inappropriate.
220.20. Nagin v. Zurmuhlen. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.) *
220.21. Wilkins v. Carlander, et al. (Super. Ct., King Co., #490844.) State of Wash. in 1955 enacted law requiring every state employee to take oath that he is not a member of the Communist Party or other subversive organization, including all those on Atty. Genl.'s list. Pl.-warehouseman in cold storage plant of Port of Seattle brings this action against Defs.—commissioner and other officials of Port of Seattle for declaratory judgment that the law is invalid and enjoining its enforcement against him for refusal to sign the oath. Issues: does statute violate First and Fifth Amdts., deprive him of property in violation of Fourteenth Amdt. and constitute bill of attainder. Temporary restraining order granted for indefinite time pending decision in Savelle & Nostrand (440.1).

John Caughlan, Esq., 702 Lowman Building, Seattle.
220.50. In the Matter of Hamilton, Resp. v. Monahan, NYC Police Comm'r. (NY Ct. of App.) *
222. "Loyalty-security" indictments re application for government employment (18 USCA 1001)

222.1. U. S. v. McDaniel. (ED Wash., S. Div., #C-4519.) For facts, see I DOCKET 37-38. April 3: motion to dismiss argued.
222.2. U. S. v. Giarraputo. (ED NY, Crim. R. 44283.) Indictment of employee in private industry for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 charging Def. knowingly made false statement in Dept. of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire that he had never been arrested, whereas in fact he had been arrested in labor dispute. Issue: can false statement on questionnaire submitted, not to U.S. Gov't, but to a private employer, constitute a violation of Section 1001? Ct. denied Def.'s motion for bill of particulars but ordered Gov't to supply Def. with copy of questionnaire filled out by Def.

Morton Friedman, Esq., 168-16 Liberty Ave., Jamaica 33, NY.
225. "Loyalty-security" less - than - honorable discharges from Armed Services

225.3. Lt. Mitchell. (U.S. Air Force, 10th Air Force.) *
225.20. Harmon v. Stevens. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10, 54. Appeal pending.
225.21. Schustack v. Herren (formerly entitled Name Withheld v. Herren, et al.). (CA 2.) (136 F. Supp. 850.) For
- 73 -

facts, see I DOCKET 10. Dist. Ct. ruled against Pl. on ground he must first exhaust administrative remedies. Appeal argued Mar. 13; decision reserved.
225.22. Bernstein, et al. v. Lt. Gen. Herren. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38, 55. U.S.S.C. denied stay of Army Field Bd. security hearings pending appeal. Fedl. Judge Ryan granted Gov't's cross-motion for summary judgment; dismissed complaint. CA 2 appeal argued April 6. (March 16: Army Field Bd. hearings held; decision stayed pending decision by CA 2.)
225.23. Bland v. Hartman, et al. (SD Calif., S. Div., CA #1852-SD.) Complaint dismissed.
225.24. Re Anonymous. (Coast Guard—San Francisco.) Man in Naval Reserve was charged with being security risk because parents were allegedly Communists, had insurance with the IWO, read the Daily Peoples World and mother was active in Jewish People's Fraternal Order. Hearing set for March 17th. Prior thereto Coast Guard advised that its regulations had been modified enabling it to give honorable discharges in cases of this kind. Upon application being made, honorable discharge was granted.

George R. Andersen, Esq., 240 Montgomery St., San Francisco.

And see cases at 450.
227. "Loyalty-security" denials of veterans' disability payments

227.1. Thompson v. Veterans Admin. (Vet. Adm.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38. March 1: Pet.'s wife awarded $13.40 per mth., retroactive to Oct., 1953 when Pet. lost pension for Smith Act conviction. VA asked Pet.'s wife for proof of custody of 2 children. Appeal from Pet.'s loss of $150 a mth. pension still pending.
227.2. Wellman v. Veterans Administration. (Vet. Adm.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38. VA reinstituted pension payments to wife; Pet.'s loss of pension still pending on appeal.
230. "Loyalty-security" dismissals v. academic freedom
Report by special comm., Amer. Assn. of University Professors, Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security. March 22, 1956.
230.1. Matter of Hughes v. Bd. of Higher Education. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.) (130 N.E. 2d 638.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10, 38. After trial, Ct. found Prof. Hughes was not a member of the Communist Party. Def.-Bd. will not appeal from this decision. Appeal before Commr. of Educ. still pending on Def.'s "duty to inform" resolution.

See amicus brief in Adler, et al. v. Sup't Jansen and NYC Bd. of Educ. (Commr. Allen, NY State Univ.) on "informer" resolution, filed by NYC Chapter, National Lawyers Guild, by Harold Kozupsky and Robert Silk, Esqs., 140 Nassau, NYC.

And see cases at 440. 460.
240. Perjury indictments against trade union officials under Taft-Hartley oath

240.1. Hupman v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10. Cite: 349 U.S. 953.
240.3. Jencks v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #596.) (226 F. 2d 540, 553.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10-11, 38. March 5: certiorari granted limited to 4 questions: 1) Trial Ct.'s denial of Def.'s motion to inspect reports made to FBI by Gov't witness Matusow; 2) Ct.'s refusal to give charge to jury re testimony of "confidential informers"; 3) Ct.'s definition of "membership," and 4) Ct.'s definition of "affiliation" in charge to jury. To be argued Fall, 1956.

And see: Matusow (545.2) and Witt (480.2).
240.4. Gold v. U. S. (CA DC, #12, 352.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11, 55. March 9: conviction affirmed per curiam by 4-4 vote, each judge reserving the right to file a statement of his vote and his reasons. Petition for rehearing filed.

And see Cammer (560.4).
240.5. U. S. v. Fisher. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Feb.: CA 9 reversed conviction on 2 grounds, inter alia; 1) error for Trial Ct. to refuse to order Gov't to produce FBI pay vouchers to informer witness who testified to such payments; 2) error in Trial Ct.'s instructions to jury re "affiliation".
240.6. U. S. v. Bryson. (CA 9.) *
240.7. U. S. v. Travis. (CA 10.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11, 38, 55. Feb. 15: Motion for new trial denied. Sentence: 8 yrs. and $8,000. fine. Appeal filed.

And see Mine, Mill (165.1).
240.8. U. S. v. Lohman. (CA 6.) *
240.9. U. S. v. Killian. (ND Ill. EDiv, #55 CR 626.) For facts, see I DOCKET 55. March 19: Ct. overruled motions to dismiss and for bill of particulars. Trial date: June 19.

And see cases at 165.
250. "Loyalty-security" dismissals in private employment

250.1. Black et al. on behalf of United Office and Professional Workers Union Local v. Cutter Laboratories. (USSC.) (278 P. 2d 905, 1955.) *

Law review note on decision below in 40 Minnesota L.R. 177-181 (Jan., 1956).

And see Rose (475.4).
250.2. Parker, et al. v. Lester, et al. (CA 9.) (227 F. 2d 708.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38-39. March 24: after asking additional 60 days to file petition for cert., Gov't decided not to appeal from CA 9 decision.
250.3. Hutchin v. Rohr Aircraft Co. (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego.) For facts, see I DOCKET 56. Awaiting trial.

And see cases at 470.
- 74 -

255. Denial of Unemployment Compensation

255.1. Re Fitzpatrick. (Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review.) *
255.2. Re Albert. (Unemployment Compensation Referee.) *
255.4. Baxter v. General Motors. (Mich. Employment Security Adm.) Mrs. Baxter, employee of General Motors, was discharged after her husband's brother was called as witness before House Un-American Activities Comm. in Flint. Ground given for discharge: she had applied for employment under maiden name and had not disclosed her married name. Over Def.-Co.'s objection, unemployment compensation was granted her, the Examiner holding: use of maiden name was not a falsification. UAWAFLCIO effort to compel Co. to reinstate her is pending.

Morton Leitson & Max Dean, Esqs., 804 Detroit Street, Flint 2, Michigan.

And see 475.
257. Denial of Social Security benefits

257.1. Matter of Bittleman, Mindel, Foster. (Social Security Bd.) *
260. Actions against attorneys based on alleged political associations

260.2. In re Schlesinger. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Cty., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.) *
260.3. In re Steinberg. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Cty., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.) *

And see 420, 480 and 560.
270. Refusals to issue licenses on "loyalty-security" grounds

270.1. Appeal of Shonick. (Docket #8, D.C. Bd. of Appeals and Review.) *
270.2. In re Application of Dispatch, Inc., Erie, Pa., for Renewal of License of Television Station WICU. (Fedl. Comm. Comm., #11048, File BRCT-42.) Owner: Edward Lamb. For facts, see I DOCKET 12, 39. FCC attorneys appealing from decision of FCC H'g Examiner Sharfman.
280. Denial of passports on "loyalty-security" grounds
Law review article:

Leonard B. Boudin, The Constitutional Right to Travel, 56 Columbia L.R. 47-75 (Jan., 1956).


280.1. Nathan v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Cite: 225 F. 2d 29.
280.6. McIntire v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. No change in status except that a second 6-mth. passport has been issued.
280.8. Boudin v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. 39. 56. Appeal argued March 8; decision awaited.
280.9. Schachtman v. Dulles. (CA DC.) (225. F. 2d 938.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12.

Law review notes in:

56 Columbia L.R. 123-126 (Jan., 1956);

41 Cornell L.Q. 282-293 (Winter, 1956);

44 Georgetown L.J. 141-145 (Nov., 1955);

69 Harvard L.R. 381-383 (Dec., 1955);

17 Univ. of Pittsburgh L.R. 289-294 (Winter, 1956).
280.11. Dayton v. Dulles. (DC DC.) Facts substantially the same as Boudin (280.8, see I DOCKET 12, 38 and 56.) Fedl. Judge McGarraghy refused to follow Judge Youngdahl's decision in Boudin, holding that denial of the passport application was reasonable exercise of discretion by Def. under valid regulations.

Harry Rand, Esq., Wyatt Bldg., Washington, D.C.
280.30. Robeson v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12-13. Appeal argued March 8; decision awaited.
280.32. Kent v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 56. March 28: Pl.'s motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment denied by Fedl. Judge McGarraghy.
280.33. Briehl v. Dulles. (DC DC.) Facts and issues similar to Kent (280.32). March 28: Fedl. Judge McGarraghy denied Pl.'s motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment.

Leonard Boudin, Esq., 25 Broad St., NYC.
290. Actions against the foreign-born based on alleged political associations

290.1. Crain v. Boyd, Distr. Dir. (CA 9, #14633.) *
290.3. U. S. v. De la Cruz. (CA 9.) *

And see cases at 540.
300. Refusals to answer questions re political beliefs, affiliations—contempt indictments
301. Before Congressional committees: based on First Amendment/no authority to ask
A. FEDERAL CASES

301.1. U. S. v. Lamont. (CA 2.) (18 F.R.D. 27.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Appeal to be argued in April or May.

Law review note on decision below in 24 Geo. Wash'n L.R. 342-344 (Jan., '56).
301.2. U. S. v. Unger. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Appeal to be argued in April or May.
301.3. U. S. v. Shadowitz. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Appeal to be argued in April or May.
301.4. U. S. v. O'Connor. (CA DC.) *
301.5. U. S. v. C. Davis. (WD Mich.) *
301.6. U. S. v. Watson. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial completed and briefs submitted, decision awaited.
301.7. U. S. v. Barenblatt. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. March 15: Convicted for refusal to answer 5 questions
- 75 -

before House Un-American Activities Comm. after trial before Judge Holtzoff, a jury having been waived. Sentence: 6 mths. Appeal pending.
301.8. U. S. v. Lorch. (SD Ohio.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14, 40, 57. Trial date: April 16.
301.9. U. S. v. Russell. (DC DC, Crim. #1230.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial date: April 9, 1956.
301.10. U. S. v. Deutch. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. After conviction in Dist. Ct., Jan. 4: record on appeal transmitted to CA.
301.11. U. S. v. Markison. (DC DC, #1155-54.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Feb. 13: Fedl. Judge Curran granted Def.'s motion for acquittal on all counts.
301.12. U.S. v. Sacher. (DC DC.) Def.-atty. had been subpoenaed before Senate Internal Security sub-committee investigating recantation of testimony by Matusow (see 545.3). Def. had used such recantation as basis for motion for new trial in Flynn (110.11) in which Matusow had testified and new trial granted to two Defs. in that case. Def.-atty. questioned as to his relations with Matusow but declined to answer questions re his own political beliefs and associations. Basis for refusal: questions improper, not pertinent, had no legislative purpose. Tried Mar. 12; found guilty by Judge Holtzoff; 6 mos. and $1000 fine. Appeal filed. Bail continued.

Judge Hubert Delany, 52 Broadway, NYC, and David Rein, Esq., 711 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C.
301.13. U. S. v. Gojack. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Trial date: April.
310. Before Congressional committees: based on unwillingness to "inform"/lack of authority

310.2. U. S. v. Furry. (DC Mass. Crim., #54-390WA.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial date: May 21, 1956.
310.3. U. S. v. Kamin. (DC Mass.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Cite: 136 F. Supp. 791.
310.4. U. S. v. Metcalf. (SD Ohio.) *
310.6. U. S. v. Singer. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Error in report at I DOCKET 57. Correction: Jan. 20: Def. acquitted as to Counts 2, 12-22; March 16: Trial Judge entered memorandum opinion finding Def. not guilty as to Counts 1, 3-10; guilty as to Count 11.
310.7. Watkins v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,797.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14, 57. Feb. 20: CA agreed to rehearing en banc.
310.8. U. S. v. Keeney. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Law review note in 24 Geo. Wash'n L.R. 342-344 (Jan., 1956).
320. During trial: based on Fifth Amendment privilege/refusal to "inform"

320.1. U. S. v. Phillips. (CA 9.) *
320.2. Yates v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Cite: 227 F. 2d 844.
320.3. Yates v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Cite: 227 F. 2d 848.
320.4. Yates v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #547.) (227 F. 2d 851.)
320.5. U. S. v. Ekins. (DC Conn.) One Def. in Silverman (110.10) convicted of summary contempt for refusal to answer question on cross-examination re name of particular person mentioned because it would jeopardize his job. March 29: 6 mth. sentence; no appeal.
330. During deportation and denaturalization proceedings: lack of authority/refusal to "inform"/Fifth Amendment privilege

330.1. U. S. v. Minker. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Cite: 350 U. S. 179, aff'g 217 F. 2d 350.
330.2. Falcone v. Barnes. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Cite: 350 U. S. 179, reversing 219 F. 2d 137.
330.3. Vivian v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Cite: 350 U.S. 953.
330.4. Lansky v. Savoretti. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 57. Cite: 350 U. S. 952.
330.5. Brown v. U. S. (CA 6, #12,628.) Def. found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to 6 mths. in jail for refusing to answer questions, on grounds of Fifth Amendment privilege, after having voluntarily taken the stand in her own defense in denaturalization trial. The questions were asked on cross-examination. Issue: does a party, by taking the stand in his own behalf in a civil proceeding, waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination? Appeal argued; decision reserved.

George W. Crockett, Jr., Esq., 3220 Cadillac Tower, Detroit.
340. Before Congressional committee: based on Fifth Amendment privilege

340.4. U. S. v. Starkovich. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16, 41. March 8: CA 9 reversed Def.'s conviction because question Def. refused to answer ("When did you move from Bellingham to Seattle") under circumstances might have been link in chain to Smith Act prosecution.
340.5. U. S. v. Jackins. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16, 41. March 8: CA 9 ordered judgment of acquittal on all counts because privilege properly claimed under the circumstances, tho questions appeared innocuous on their face.
340.6. U. S. v. Fagerhaugh. (CA 9.) *
340.8. U. S. v. Hoag. (DC DC.) *
340.9. McKenzie v. U.S. (CA 9.) Def. claimed Fifth Amdt. privilege in hearing before House Un-American Activities Comm. in Portland in 1954. Convicted; 1 yr. and $250 fine. Appeal held in abeyance, pending decision in Fagerhaugh (340.6).

Norman Leonard, Esq., 240 Montgomery, San Francisco 4.
340.10. Wollam v. U. S. (CA 9.) Facts and issues similar to McKenzie (340.9). Appeal held in abeyance, pending decision in Fagerhaugh (340.6).

Norman Leonard, Esq., 240 Montgomery, San Francisco 4.
- 76 -

350. Before Court or grand jury: based on Fifth Amendment privilege
351. Federal Immunity Statute invoked

351.1. U. S. v. Ullmann. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. March 26: U.S.S.C. affirmed conviction (7-2), upholding constitutionality of Fedl. Immunity Act of 1954. Frankfurter, J. for maj. listed 4 issues: "1) is the immunity provided by the act sufficiently broad to displace the protection afforded by the privilege against self-incrimination? 2) Assuming that the statutory requirements are met, does the act give the district judge discretion to deny an application for an order requiring the witness to answer relevant questions put by the grand jury, and if so, is the court thereby required to exercise a function that is not an exercise of "judicial power"? 3) Did Congress provide immunity from state prosecution for crime, and if so, is it empowered to do so? 4) Does the Fifth Amendment prohibit compulsion of what would otherwise be self-incriminating testimony no matter what the scope of the immunity statute/"

The Ct.'s answers in brief: 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) Yes; 4) statute broad enough to compel testimony in "area of national security."

Douglas, J. dissenting: "The critical point is that the Constitution places the right of silence beyond the reach of the Government. The Fifth Amendment stands between the citizen and his Government. . . . The guarantee against self-incrimination combined in the Fifth Amdt. is not only a protection against conviction and prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well. My view is that the framers [of the Constitution] put it beyond the power of Congress to compel anyone to confess his crimes." The Fifth Amdt. "was designed to protect the accused against infamy as well as against prosecution." The "concept of infamy" was written into the amendment. "There is great infamy involved in the present case." . . . "The disclosure that a person is a Communist practically excommunicates him from society": he listed these disabilities: ineligibility for Federal employment in defense facilities, disqualification for a passport and the risk of internment as a few penalties.

Black, J. joined in dissent.

And see law review article quoted at length in Douglas, J. dissent: Mitchell Franklin, The Encyclopédiste Origin and Meaning of the Fifth Amendment, XV Law. Guild Rev. 41-62 (Summer, 1955).
351.2. U. S. v. Fitzgerald. (CA 2.) *
360. Inability/refusal to produce records before Congressional Committees

360.1. Flaxer v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,027.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. March 6: re-argued before court en banc; decision reserved.
370. Inability/refusal to produce records before Court/grand jury
380. Indictment for perjury before Congressional committees
B. STATE CASES
390. Before state official—based on First Amendment-equivalent

390.1. New Hampshire, by Wyman, Atty. Genl. v. Sweezey. (N.H. Sup. Ct., #4395.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17. March 4: N. H. Sup. Ct. unanimously affirmed conviction of Def. for refusal to answer questions re content of his lecture at U. of New Hamp. and activities of Progressive Party because statute giving Atty. Genl. power to investigate "subversive" organizations and individuals held valid and questions relevant when Atty. Genl. "possesses reasonable or reliable information" that proscribed doctrines and actions were present.

And see Uphaus (170.1).
395. Before state body—based on Fifth Amendment privilege-equivalent
396. State Immunity Statute invoked

396.1. Regan v. New York. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17. Cite: 349 U. S. 58.

Law review notes in:

8 Alabama L.R. 129-133 (Fall, 1955);

43 California L.R. 886-893 (Dec., 1955);

41 Cornell L.Q. 294-304 (Winter, 1956);

34 Texas L.R. 313-315 (Dec., 1955).
396.2. Ohio v. Morgan. (Ohio Sup. Ct., #34,311.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17. Feb. 23: Ohio S. Ct. affirmed conviction (4-3), holding Def. properly claimed privilege despite reference to Fifth Amdt. instead of comparable state provision but privilege erased by state immunity statute, and therefore no direction to answer necessary. Hart, J. dissented on ground that since state could not offer protection against federal prosecution, immunity not broad enough to erase privilege. Stewart, J. dissented because Def. did not wilfully refuse to answer since Comm. Chairman informed Def. she could claim privilege and did not give direction to answer. Taft, J. dissented on ground immunity statute did not apply to this Comm. Appeal to U.S.S.C. to be filed.

And see Raley (396.5).
396.3. Ohio v. Jackson and Terrill. *
396.4. Ohio v. Hupman, et al. *
396.5. Ohio v. Raley, et al. (Ohio Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17. Feb. 23: convictions affirmed (4-3); opinion combined with opinion in Morgan (see 396.2).
396.6. Ohio v. Slagle, et al. (Stark Co. Com. Pleas Ct., #15972.) *
396.7. Ohio v. Arnold, Thelma Furry, et al. (Ct. of App., 9th Dist., #4524-4531.) *
396.8. State v. Dominguez. (La. Sup. Ct.) (82 So. 2d 12.) Where state constitution prohibits use of compelled testimony in any judicial proceedings, under Fifth Amdt. witness before state grand jury may nevertheless not be
- 77 -

required to give self-incriminating answers where there are federal indictments pending against him on related matters, the state immunity not extending to federal prosecution.

Law review note in 42 Virginia L.R. 84-86 (Jan., 1956).
400. Sanctions against individuals for refusals to answer
A. BASED ON FLAT REFUSALS TO ANSWER
410. Denial of public housing—Gwinn Amendment oath
Law review note:

Denial of Federally Aided Housing to Members of Organizations on the Attorney General's List, 69 Harvard L.R. 551-559 (Jan., 1956)


410.1. Rudder v. U. S. (CA DC.) (226 F. 2d 51.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17.

Law review note in 55 Columbia L.R. 1222-1225 (Dec., 1955).
410.2. Lawson v. Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee, et al. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18, 41. Cite: cert. denied, 350 U. S. 882.
410.3. Dailey, et al. v. Housing Auth. of City of Seattle. (Wash. S. Ct.) *
410.4. Peters v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY Appl. Div., 2d Dept.) *
410.5. Weixel v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY App. Div., 2d Dept.) *
410.6. Levine v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co., #7289-1955.) *
410.7. New York City Housing Authority v. Sichel, et al. (1st Dist., Brooklyn.) *
410.8. Dupree v. Baltimore City Housing Authority. *
410.9. Wheatley, et al. v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority. *
410.10. Richmond Housing Authority v. Zumwalt. (Sup. Ct., App. Dept., Contra Costa County.) *
410.11. San Francisco Housing Authority v. Thorner. (App. Dept., San Francisco Superior Ct.) *
410.12. Los Angeles Housing Authority v. Cordova. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 58-59. Feb. 26: U.S.S.C. denied certiorari, leaving standing Super. Ct. decision ruling such requirement unconstitutional.
410.13. Kutcher v. Housing Authority of Newark. (N.J. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 59. Cite: 119 A. 2d 1.
420. Actions against attorneys

420.3. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California and Committee of Bar Examiners. (U.S.S.C.) *
430. Loss of individual tax exemptions (Calif.)

430.1. Speiser v. Randall. (Calif. Superior Ct., Contra Costa County.) *
430.2. Prince v. City & County of San Francisco. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., Div. 1.) *
430.3. Lehrer v. Hall. (Calif. Superior Ct., Marin County.) *
430.4. Bliss v. Quinn. (Calif. Superior Ct., Los Angeles.) *

And see cases at 30.
440. Attacks against academic loyalty oaths

440.1. Savelle and Nostrand v. U. of Wash., et al. (Thurston Cty. Superior Ct.) *

And see Wilkins (220.21).
440.2. Lens, Pickus and Soglin v. Chicago Board of Education. (Chi. Cir. Ct. 55 C 13940, 55 C 16445.) For facts, see I DOCKET 42, 59. Court, by Miner, J., held: 1) School Bd. entirely independent of City of Chicago and its employees, therefore subject to Broyles Oath Law; 2) teachers are employees and not officers; and 3) law does not violate First Amdt. rights. Citing Garner v. Bd. of Public Works of Los Angeles (341 US 716), Adler v. Bd. of Education of City of New York (342 US 485), In re Anastaplo (3 Ill. 2, 471) and others, Ct. holds statute relates to knowing membership in Communist Party or subversive organization and such membership is related to fitness of teachers. Injunction sought by Pls. denied.

Henry Heineman and Bernard Weissbourd, Esqs., 135 S. La Salle, and F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Staff Counsel, Chicago Division ACLU, 19 S. La Salle, of Chicago.

And see cases at 230, 460.
B. BASED ON CLAIM OF FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
Law review note:

Self-Incrimination—Historical Background of the Doctrine, 44 Kentucky L.J. 124-130 (Fall, 1955).

450. Refusal of honorable discharge from Armed Services

450.3. St. Helen. v. Lt. Gen. Wyman, et al. (ND Calif.) (222 F. 2d 890.) *
450.5. Marshall v. Brucker. (DC DC, #5036-55.) *

And see cases at 225.
455. Dismissal fro government employment

455.1. Lerner v. Transit Authority. (#15187-1954 App. Div., 1st Dept., N.Y.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Appeal argued; decision reserved.

And see cases at 220.
460. Dismissal from academic employment

460.1. Opinion of Justices of Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. (Re House Bill 2590.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. Cite: 126 NE 2d 100. Subsequently Ct. held that statute limiting discharge to "instructor or teacher at any public school" who for any reason refuses to answer questions re communism at trial or hearing would probably be constitutional, but said U.S.S.C. would decide this in Slochower (460.3). Cite: 127 NE 2d 663.
- 78 -

460.3. Slochower v. Bd. of Education. (U.S.S.C., #466.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20, 42. April 9: U.S.S.C. (5-4) reversed CA 2, held Pl.'s dismissal violates due process; Sec. 903 NYC Chapter, as applied, unconstitutional (Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183). Clark, J.: "At the outset we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amdt. * * * As we pointed out in Ullmann (351.1), a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. * * * In practical effect [under Sec. 903] the questions asked [by any Gov'tal body] are taken as confessed and made the basis of the discharge. No consideration is given to such factors as the subject matter of the questions, remoteness of the period to which they are directed, or justification for exercise of the privilege. It matters not whether the plea resulted from mistake, inadvertence or legal advice conscientiously given, whether wisely or unwisely." "Since no inference of guilt was possible from the claim before the Fedl. comm., the discharge falls of its own weight as wholly without support. * * *

"This is not to say that Slochower has a constitutional right to be an assoc. prof. * * * at B'klyn College. The state has broad powers in the selection and discharge of its employees, and it may be that proper inquiry would show his continued employment to be inconsistent with a real interest in the state. But there has been no such inquiry here."

Reed, Minton, Burton, Harlan, JJ., dissenting.
460.4. Bd. of Education of City of Los Angeles v. Eisenberg. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. Cite: 129 Cal. App. 2d 732.
460.5. Steinmmetz v. Calif. State Bd. of Ed. (U.S.S.C., #288, Misc.) (44 Cal. 2d 816.) *
460.6. Mass. v. San Francisco Bd. of Education. (Calif. Supreme Ct.) *
460.7. Schuyten v. Contra Costa Bd. of Education. (Sup. Ct. Contra Costa Co., Cal.)
460.9. Los Angeles Teachers v. Board of Education. (Calif. Ct. of App. 2d Dist.) Suit by five teachers suspended for refusing to answer political questions. Initiated prior to passage of Dilworth Act (making the answer to such question mandatory on pain of automatic dismissal.) Petition for hearing before Calif. Sup. Ct. denied. Writ of certiorari to USSC being considered.

(The late William B. Esterman, Esq.); A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., 257 S. Spring St., Los Angeles.
460.10. St. John v. Orange Coast College. (Calif. Ct. of App., 4th Dist.) Test of constitutionality of Dilworth Act making it mandatory for teachers to answer questions concerning their political beliefs and associations back to 1945 on pain of automatic dismissal. Briefs filed on appeal; ruling postponed pending outcome of petition for certiorari in U.S.S.C. in Steinmetz (460.5.)

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., 257 S. Spring St., for Am. Civil Liberties Union of S. Calif.

And see cases at 230, 440.
470. Dismissal from private employment

470.1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), et al. v. General Electric Company. (CA DC, #12, 628.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. March 22: CA DC dismissed complaint of Pl.-Union and Pl.-discharged employee for lack of jurisdiction. Pls. charged Def. made unilateral change in conditions of employment in violation of union contract by adopting and enforcing rule: employees invoking Fifth Amdt. or refusing to testify before Cong. Comm. to be discharged. Ct. held: charge equals allegation of unfair labor practice within exclusive primary jurisdiction of N.L.R.B.; amount in controversy less than $3,000 jurisdictional amount because Pl.-employee earned less than that from Def.-Co. as part-time Union official.
470.2. Polumbaum v. United Press. (Sup. Ct., NY Co.) Pl.-writer employed by Def. had invoked Fifth Amdt. before House Un-American Activities Comm. when questioned about communism. He was dismissed and American Newspaper Guild demanded arbitration. Arbitrator George A. Spiegelberg held: while Def. might have right to dismiss Pl. because its customers might consider him biased, letter of explanation by Def. assigned different reason for discharge. On suit to enforce award and compel reinstatement, Ref. Carroll G. Walter of Sup. Ct. held: Def.'s letter asserted Pl.'s actions were incompatible with best interests of journalism and that was a just and sufficient cause for dismissal and arbitrator should have so held; arbitrator had exceeded his authority in limiting reason for dismissal to Def.'s letter. Court denied reinstatement.

Irving Leuchter, Esq., 24 Commerce St., Newark.

And see cases at 250.
475. Denial of unemployment compensation

475.3. Kilpatrick v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct. #669433.) *
475.4. Rose v. American Motors Corp. (Wis. Ind. Comm., #22801.) *

And see cases at 255.
480. Disbarment of attorneys

480.1. Sheiner v. Florida. (Dade County Circuit Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., #167991-H.) (82 So. 2d 657.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21, 43. Disbarment proceeding has been set down for retrial for April 14th. Sheiner has meantime amended his answer denying current political affiliations charged in complaint.

And see 260, 420, 560.
- 79 -

II. RIGHT TO FAIR PROCEDURES AND TRIAL—FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

510. Use of evidence illegally obtained—Fourth Amendment
Law review articles:

Edward L. Barrett, Jr., Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Il-legal Searches—A Comment on People v. Cahan, 342 U. S. 165 (1952), 43 California L.R. 565-595 (Oct., 1955).

Osmond K. Fraenkel, Search and Seizure Developments in Federal Law Since 1948, 41 Iowa L.R. 67-84 (Fall, 1955).


510.1. Rea v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 60. Cite: 350 U.S. 214.

And see Rynders (530.7).
511. Wiretapping
Law review note:

Criminal Law—Wiretapping—Analysis of the Law and Practice Under New York Constitutional and Statutory Provisions. 31 N.Y.U.L.J. 197-221 (Jan., 1956).


511.1. New York v. Broady. (NYC Genl. Sess. Ct.)*
511.2. Pennsylvania v. Chaitt. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21, 43. Cite: cert. denied, 350 U. S. 829.
511.3. People v. Cahan, 44 Adv. Calif. 462, 282 P. 2d 905 (1955). For facts, see I DOCKET 21.

Law review notes in:

5 DePaul L.R. 116-121 (Autumn-Winter, 1955);

54 Michigan L.R. 421-423 (Jan., 1956);

31 Notre Dame Lawyer 85-88 (Dec., 1955);

29 So. California L.R. 129-131 (Dec., 1955);

1955 Univ. of Illinois Law Forum 620-623 (Fall, 1955).
511.4. Wirin v. Parker, L.A. Police Chief. (Super. Ct., #590862.)*
511.5. Sugden v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #555.) (226 F. 2d 281.)
511.6. California v. Tarantino. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) (290 Pac. 2d 505.) Def. was charged with extortion and conspiracy to extort. Substantiating evidence was obtained by tape recordings of conversations in Def.'s hotel room, through a microphone planted there. Calif. Sup. Ct. held: such evidence unlawful and inadmissible; reversed all counts but one.

Leo R. Friedman, Esq., Russ Bldg.; Charles R. Garry, Esq., 470 Central Tower, and George Olshausen, Esq., all of San Francisco, Cal.
515. Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures—Fourth Amendment

515.1. Hinton v. Eastland, et al. (DC DC, CA #1167-56.) Suit charging U.S. Customs agents unlawfully seized Pl.'s valuable collection of papers, correspondence, photos, books on his return from 6½ yrs. in China in 1953 and that in 1955 Senate Internal Security Subcomm. unlawfully took possession of them. $500,000 suit seeking return of collection filed after Pl. appeared as witness before Subcomm. which refused to make restitution.

James T. Wright, Esq., 2003 Twelfth St. NW, Washington, D.C.
515.2. In re Six Companies, et al. (ND Calif.) 24 Chinatown ancestral family associations filed motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by Fedl. grand jury for ass'ns' membership records in connection with investigation of alleged citizenship frauds. March 21: Fedl. Judge Carter quashed subpoenas for having the "effect of being a mass inquisition of the family records of a substantial portion of the Chinese population of San Francisco"; ruling made without prejudice to issuance of subpoenas "sufficiently specific and properly related to the subject of inquiry."

Marvin Lewis, Esq., 703 Market St., and Harold Faulkner, Esq., Balfour Bldg., 351 California St., both of San Francisco.
515.3. Levy v. Grant, et al. (S Dist. Calif.) Pl., arrested by Los Angeles City police, was forced to accompany Def.-officers who took his key, entered and ransacked his rooms; now brings $3,000 damage suit under Federal Civil Rights Act. Issue: does the 4th Amdt. guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure apply to state action through 14th Amdt. due process clause or must Pl. exhaust state remedies before entering Fedl. cts.? March 19: argued before Fedl. Judge Tolin; decision reserved.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., 257 S. Spring; and Paul M. Posner, Esq., all of Los Angeles.

And see section 695.
520. Right to indictment by grand jury of one's peers—Fifth Amendment
521. Challenge based on presence of Government employees
522. Challenge based mainly on absence of economic cross-section

522.1. Dow v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. (U.S.S.C.) (224 F. 2d 414, 76 S. Ct. 442.) For facts, see I DOCKET 22, 43. Feb. 27: certiorari denied.
523. Challenge based mainly on absence of members of minority groups

523.2. People v. White. (Correct title: White v. California.) (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 22, 43. Cite: 350 U. S. 875.
523.3. Georgia v. Reece. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 43-44. Cite: 350 U. S. 85.
523.4. Louisiana v. Poret and Labat. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 44. Cites: 75 So. 2d 333, 350 U. S. 91.
- 80 -

523.5. Michel v. Louisiana. (USSC.) (350 U.S. 91, 74 So. 2d 207). For facts, see I DOCKET 44.

Law review note in 42 A.B.A.J. 156-157 (Feb., 1956).
525. Grand jury procedures
527. Right to jury trial—Fifth Amendment

527.1. U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 44. Cite: 350 U.S. 11.
527.2. U. S. ex rel. Covert v. Reid. (U.S.S.C., #701.) For facts, see I DOCKET 60. Certiorari granted.
537.3. U. S. ex rel. Krueger v. Kinsella, Warden. (D.C. W. Va., #1726.) Habeas corpus proceedings raising the same issue as Covert. (527.2, see I DOCKET 60.) Court discharged writ, holding: civilians accompanying armed forces overseas are subject to military trials. USSC granted certiorari.

John C. Morrison, Esq., Charleston, W. Va.; Frederick Bernays Wiener, Esq., Suite 815, Stoneleigh Court, and Adam Richmond, Esq., both of Washington, D. C.
527.4. Martin v. Young. (ND Calif. S Div.) (134 F. Supp. 204.) Habeas corpus proceeding. Sept. 1, 1955: Dist. Ct. held: Army lost jurisdiction to court martial Pet. for crimes committed during period of enlistment when it discharged him and did not regain such power by Pet.'s re-enlistment and presence in military service at time charges were preferred. (Martin was honorably discharged 8/3/53; reenlisted 8/4/53; now prosecuted for alleged crimes as prisoner of war.) Writ granted.

Robert E. Hannon, Esq., Castro Valley, California.
530. Police violence and coerced confessions—Fifth Amendment

530.2. Cranor, Supt. Wash. State Pen. v. Gonsales. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 60. Cite: 350 U.S. 935.
530.3. Admr. of Fields v. NYC & Applebaum. (Kings Co. App. Div., 2d Dept.)*
530.5. Hidalgo v. Sheriff Biscailuz. (Calif. Superior Ct., Los Angeles.) Suit for damages resulting from unprovoked beating inflicted by Los Angeles deputy sheriffs during alleged wave of beatings of Mexican-American youths. Feb. 23: jury awarded Pl. $1000 compensatory damages plus small punitive damages against each deputy. A. L. Wirin, Esq., 257 S. Spring St., Marshall Ross, Esq.. 5877 W. Jefferson Blvd., both of Los Angeles, Calif.
530.6. Bustillos v. Sheriff Biscailus. (Calif. Superior Ct., Los Angeles.) Facts same as Hidalgo (530.5). Pending.

A. L. Wirin, Esq., 257 S. Spring St.; Marshall Ross, Esq., 5877 W. Jefferson Blvd., both of Los Angeles.
530.7. Rynders v. Hilton, et al. (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles.) Damage suit against five Los Angeles police officers, charging illegal search and seizure, and assault and battery. Pending.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., 257 S. Spring St.; and Marshall Ross, Esq., 5877 W. Jefferson Blvd., all of Los Angeles.
540. Due process—Fifth Amendment
Law review note:

The Rights of Aliens in Deportation Proceedings, 31 Indiana L. J. 218-232 (Winter, 1956).


540.2. Hyun v. Landon. (U.S.S.C., #201.) For facts, see I DOCKET 44. March 26: per curiam: judgment affirmed by equally divided Ct. (Clark, J. not participating.)
540.3. Nukk, et al. v. Shaughnessy. (SD NY.)*
540.5. U. S. v. Keller and Witkovich. (ND Ill., ED #55 CR 608, 607.) For facts, see I DOCKET 45 (at 570.5), 61. Ct. denied Defs.' motions to dismiss indictments but ruled: Atty. Gen'l's. only power is to deport; any questions he asked Defs. under supervisory parole conditions must be relevant to Defs.' "availability for deportation." Defs. moved Ct. to determine before trial whether questions asked in indictment which Defs. had refused to answer are relevant to purpose stated by Ct. and to dismiss indictments if they are not. Pending.
540.6. Sentner v. Colarelli. (ED Mo.)*
540.7. Gonsales v. Landon. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 61. Cite: 350 U.S. 920.

And see cases at 330.
545. Due process—actions against recanting witnesses

545.1. U. S. v. Natvig. (CA DC.)*
545.2. Matusow v. U. S. (CA 5.)*
545.3. U. S. v. Matusow. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Trial date: April 2.
550. Due process—right to acquittal/new trial based on perjured testimony, new facts

550.1. U. S. v. Zuker. (Immigration Service, Cleveland Office.)*

And see Lamb (270.2).
550.2. U. S. v. Bridges. (ND Cal. SD.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Cite: 133 F. Supp. 638.
550.3. Salemi v. New York. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23, 61. Fedl. Judge Clancy dismissed writ of habeas corpus. CA 2 granted certificate of probable cause on appeal from SD NY decision.
550.4. Illinois v. Miller. (Ill. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23, 61.*

Charles Liebman, Nathan Wolfberg and Morris Simons. Esqs., and F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Staff Counsel, Chicago Div., ACLU, 19 S. La Salle, Chicago.
550.5. Landeros v. State of New Jersey. (U.S.S.C.) (20 N.J. 76.) After jury trial Def.-Negro convicted of rape of white woman; sentence: 10-12 yrs. Thereafter Union Co. police and prosecutors brought in other women involved in sexual attacks; Def. then indicted for many unsolved sex crimes in area. On appeal from conviction of one such case before N.J. Sup. Ct., Ct. brought up the instant conviction on own motion. Ct. ordered police records of various towns brought in; these records showed suppression of
- 81 -

evidence favorable to Def.: 4 days after alleged rape, complaining witness taken to Def.'s place of employment where she failed to identify Def. as assailant. At same time, another woman who had been raped in nearby town at a different time also failed to identify Def. 6 weeks later, after studying photos of other suspects and making personal examinations of other suspects, complainant brought to police station where Def. under arrest (for assault and battery of white woman); she instantly identified Def. At trial, complainant's identification and Def.'s alleged silence were only links to his commission of crime. N.J. Sup. Ct. affirmed conviction, stating it could not interfere with jury verdict. Issues: 1) denial of due process under 14th Amdt. by conviction based on testimony known by prosecution to be false and under circumstances where decisive evidence favorable to Def. knowingly suppressed by law-inforcement officers? 2) whether state ct., under these circumstances, may deny Def. motion for new trial Petition for certiorari filed March 19.

J. Mercer Burrell, Esq., 23 Howard St., Morton Stavis, Esq., 744 Broad St., both of Newark, N.J.
552. Right to speedy and public trial—Sixth Amendment

552.1. U. S. v. Provoo. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 61. Cite: 350 U. S. 857.
555. Confrontation of witnesses—Sixth Amendment
560. Indirect restrictions on right to counsel—Sixth Amendment

560.1. Re Gladstein. (DC Hawaii.)*
560.2. Re Bouslog. (Sup. Ct. of Terr. of Hawaii, #3044.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24, 45, 61. April 7: 3-judge ct. unanimously ordered Resp. suspended from practice in all cts. in Hawaii for one yr. Appeal pending.

And see Bouslog (560.2a).
560.2a. Re Bouslog. (DC Hawaii, Misc. #649.) For facts, see 560.2 (I DOCKET 24, 45, 61.) April 7: 2 Fedl. judges signed order suspending Resp. from practice before DC Hawaii, under Rules of Civil Procedure of Ct., 1(d). Hearing April 27 on Ct.'s order to show cause why Ct. shouldn't disbar or suspend.
560.3. Re Braverman. (Md. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24, 45, 61. March 13: Ct. of App. affirmed disbarment in 31 pp. opinion. Case to be taken to U.S.S.C.

And see 560.3a.
560.3a. Re Braverman. (DC Md.) For facts, see I DOCKET 61. Court agreed to defer action pending outcome of State proceeding (see 560.3).
560.4. Cammer v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) (223 F. 2d 322.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24, 61-62. March 12: Conviction unanimously reversed by Black, J.: lawyers not "officers of the court" within meaning of Contempt Act of March 2, 1831. Congress had not intended the law to provide for summary punishment of lawyers by judges. Lawyers are not in the same category as "marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges."—Reed, J. concurred.

Law review note on decision below (CA DC, 1955), in 40 Minnesota L.R. 171-174 (Jan., 1956).

And see 260, 420, 480.
560.5. In re Gray. (Montgomery, Ala.) Feb. 20: Gray, Negro atty. in Parks (670.5) and Browder (670.6), indicted on charge of "unlawfully appearing as an attorney." Misdemeanor charge based on claim that one Pl. in Browder bus desegregation case denied she had been aware of nature of paper she signed when affixing her name to suit.

March: action dismissed.

And see Rev. King (40.3).

And see 260, 420, 480.