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

CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET
Vol. VI, No. 4
July, 1961
$7.50 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
   

The DOCKET is published four times each year, October to July.
OSMOND K. FRAENKEL, Chairman of DOCKET Board
ANN FAGAN GINGER, Editor

I. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION (FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS) (10-299)

MATERIAL ON U.S. SUPREME COURT

Law review articles:

Alexander Meiklejohn, The balancing of self-preservation against political freedom, 49 Calif. L. Rev. 4-14.

William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the states, 36 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 761-78.

Paul G. Kauper, The Supreme Court and the rule of law, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 531-52.

Ray D. Henson, A study in style: Mr. Justice Frankfurter, 6 Vill. L. Rev. 377-87.

Comments:

The "void for vagueness" doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 67-116.

Per curiam decisions of the Supreme Court: 1959 Term, 28 U. Chi. L. Rev. 297-302.

The untenable nonfederal ground in the Supreme Court, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1375-95.

Book:

William O. Douglas, A living Bill of Rights, 72 pp. Doubleday. $1.50.

GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL MATERIAL

Law review articles:

Louis L. Jaffe, Standing to secure judicial review: public actions, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1265-1314.

W. Friedmann, Planning for freedom, 24 Modern L. Rev. 209-18.

Harold D. Lasswell, The interplay of economic, political and social criteria in legal policy, 14 Vand. L. Rev. 451-71.

Walter Probert, The psycho-semantics of judicial inquiry, 34 Temp. L. Q. 235-54.

Samuel D. Estep, The legislative process and the rule of law: attempts to legislate taste in morals and political beliefs, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 575-602.

Edward G. Hudon, Scholasticism, the law of nature, and the Bill of Rights, 38 U. Det. L. J. 279-308.

Walter E. Volkomer, The constitutional ideas of Judge Jerome N. Frank, 7 N.Y. L. F. 17-47.

Wallace Mendelson, Clear and present danger — another decade, 39 Tex. L. Rev. 449-56.

Book:

The legal conscience: selected papers of Felix S. Cohen, edit. by Lucy K. Cohen, 505 pp. Yale U. Press. $12.50.

SPEECH, PRESS AND ASSEMBLY (0-199) See also Association (200-299)
10. Licensing
11. Meetings

11.3. Los Angeles City Bd. of Educ. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union.

(U.S.S.C.)*

11.6. Rockwell v. Morris. [Cite as: VI CIV. LIB. DOCKET 101, #11.6. ]

(N.Y. Ct. of App.) Facts: VI DOCKET 51-52. June 9, 1961: N.Y. Ct. of App., per curiam, unanimously affirmed App. Div. holding for Pet's. right to park permit.
11.7. Florida ex rel. Feldman and Ray, (Emma Lazarus Organization) v. City of Miami Beach. (3d Dist. Ct. of App.)*
11.9. New York v. Humes. (Sup. Ct., Manhattan.) Facts: VI DOCKET 79. May 22, 1961: Upper Manhattan Arrest Ct.: Def. Humes convicted of making a speech in Washington Sq. Park without a permit, acquitted of disorderly conduct; suspended sentence.

And see Young, 11.9a.
11.9a. Young, Social Folk-singing Group v. Morris. (NY Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Jud. Dept.) Suit by Pls. contesting denial of park permit by Def. Commr. for group folk-singing in Washington Sq. Park. Issues: whether denial after granting permits to group for 14 yrs. was arbitrary; standards for granting or denying permits; power of Def. to issue park use permits. May 4, 1961: Sup. Ct. J. Hecht held for Def. June, 1961: appeal argued; pending.

Emanuel Redfield, Esq., for NY Civil Liberties Union, 156 Fifth Ave., NYC.
- 102 -

11.11. Pls. v. Music at Newport, Inc. (Newport Super. Ct., R.I.) 11 property owners adjacent to Freebody Park sought injunction against Def. holding jazz concerts in municipal park. May 17, 1961: Super. Ct., after 4-day hearing, held for Def.: injunction may not be issued for anticipatory nuisance.
12. Motion Pictures
Comment:

G. Bradford Cook, Motion picture censorship, 40 Neb. L. Rev. 491-502.


12.15. Times Film Corp. v. Chicago. (U.S.S.C., #34.) Facts: VI DOCKET 1, 52. Cite: 365 U.S. 43.

Case notes:

34 Temp. L. Q. 331-35;

36 N. Dame Law. 406-10;

34 So. Cal. L. Rev. 362-66.
13. Peddlers

13.1. Chicago v. Falk. (Chi. Muni. Ct., Branch 27.) Def. arrested while selling pacifist pamphlet on sidewalk; charge: peddling without a license. Apr. 17, 1961: Muni. Ct. directed not guilty verdict: Def's. actions protected by First Amendment.

J. J. Sprayregen, Esq., 38 S. Dearborn, Chicago.
14. Books, Magazines (see also 52)
Comment:

Parker L. Shipley, Obscene publication prohibition, 40 Neb. L. Rev. 481-90.

15. Miscellaneous

15.1. New York v. Ziegler. (NYC Magis. Ct.)*
15.3. New York v. Figaro Cafe. (Upper Manhattan Summons Ct.) Sept. 18, 1960: admission-free afternoon concert of Beethoven, Shubert and Bach held in Def's. coffee house; no liquor served. Def. arrested; charge: operating cabaret without license. [30 similar arrests made of coffee house operators.] Apr. 10, 1961: Magis. Bayer dismissed charge, said in long opinion: Police interpretation of cabaret law "would make even the corner ice cream parlor with its juke box and nickelodeon subject to the statute".
20. Administrative Restrictions
21. Customs
22. Post Office

22.11. Big Table, Inc. v. Schroeder. (ND Ill.) Facts: V DOCKET 22, 72. Cite: 186 F. Supp. 254.

Case note:

8 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 634-38.
22.12. Four Star Publications, Inc. v. Erbe, individually and as Iowa Atty. Genl. (CA 8, ##16492, 16495.)*
23. Miscellaneous

23.9. Shuttlesworth v. Connor. (CA 5, #18838.)*
23.10. Smith v. Cremins. (CA 9.) Facts: VI DOCKET 52-3. DC sustained motion to dismiss. Appeal pending.
23.11. New York Post Corp. v. Moses. (N.Y. Ct. of App., #130.)*
23.12. Re Richard G. Jones. (Wash. State Supt. of Public Inst.)*
23.15. W. Windsor School Bd. v. Trifan. (W. Windsor Muni. Ct., N.J.) Facts: VI DOCKET 80. May 17, 1961: after 4-day hearing, Magis. Hicks held: 1) Defs. innocent of being disorderly persons for educating children at home thru correspondence courses, with 3-5 hrs. music practice daily; 2) Defs. proved children receiving instruction "equivalent" to public school's; 3) teacher credential not necessary to prove "equivalence". Ct. criticized state and co. education authorities for failure to test Def's. children; noted complete lack of state supervision over parochial and other private schools.
23.16. Louisville Courier-Journal v. Curtis. (U.S.S.C., #442.) (335 S.W. 2d 934.) Man convicted of murder; conference in chambers between counsel; Ct. set aside murder conviction so Def. could plead guilty. Pl.-newspaper asked to see transcript of conference; Ct. refused. Pl. sued; complaint dismissed. Dec. 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. denied cert.
30. Economic Restrictions

30.1. Independent Productions Corp. v. Loew's, Inc. (SD NY, Civ. #110-304.)*
30.3. Comm. to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell v. Tavern-on-the-Green Restaurant. (SD N.Y., #143-369.)*
30.5. Wagner v. Post Office. (U.S. Post Office.)*
30.5a. Pranger v. San Bernardino Air Pollution Control Dist. (U.S.S.C.) 1958: Pl. clerk for Def. wrote editorial in union newspaper protesting failure of Bd. of Supervisors to grant Co. employees wage increase. Aug. 1958: Pl. fired for "conduct unbecoming an employee" because editorial expressed philosophy "inimical to public service". Lower cts. affirmed dismissal. Appeal to U.S.S.C. pending.

Lewis Garrett and Lionel Richman, Esqs., Los Angeles.

Amicus brief filed by A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand and Warren P. Hill, Esqs., for A.C.L.U. of S. Calif., 323 W. 5th St., Los Angeles.

30.6 Eustace v. Postmaster General and U.S. Civil Service Commission. (DC DC.)*
30.7. Young v. Motion Picture Assn. of America. (DC DC.) Facts: VI DOCKET 53. June 12, 1961: Defs. filed interrogatories re past and present political associations and beliefs of Pls. June 12, 1961: DC denied Pls. motion to strike such questions, tho 11 of 12 Pls. indicated any inquiry into this area would result in their claiming privilege against self-incrimination.
30.8. Ciepley v. Intl. Assn. of Machinists. (ND Ill., E.D., #60 C 1840.) Facts: VI DOCKET 80.*

Marks, Simons & Houghteling, Esqs., 105 W. Adams; Hubert Will, Esq., 33 N. La Salle, all of Chicago.
- 103 -

30.9. Mitchell v. Intl. Assn. of Machinists. (Dist. Ct. of App., 2d App. Dist., Calif., #24913.) Facts: VI DOCKET 80. Aug. 10, 1961: appeal argued.

Hill, Farrer and Burrill, Esqs., 411 W. 5th, Los Angeles.

Amicus appearance by A.C.L.U. of S. Calif., 323 W. 5th St., Los Angeles.
30.10. Koch v. Bd. of Trustees, U. of Ill. (Cook Co. Super. Ct.) Pl.-biologist under contract to Def. Aug. 31, 1959-Aug. 31, 1961 as asst. prof. Mar. 18, 1960: Pl's. letter published in school newspaper discussing advisability of premarital sexual relations among students under certain circumstances. Apr. 7, 1960: Def.-Pres. filed charge against Pl. of "conduct . . . prejudicial to the best interests of the University". Def. Bd. ordered Pl's. contract terminated Aug. 31, 1960. Issues: whether dismissal violates Pl's. First Amendment rights; academic freedom guaranteed by University Stats., §39a, b; due process. Pl's. suit filed. June 27, 1961: argument on Defs'. motion to dismiss.

Donald Page Moore, Esq., 105 W. Adams; Joel J. Sprayregen, Esq., 38 S. Dearborn, both of Chicago, for Ill. Div., A.C.L.U.
40. Contempt
Law review article:

Richard C. Donnelly and Ronald Goldfarb, Contempt by publication in the U.S., 24 Modern L. Rev. 239-55.

41. Federal Courts
42. State courts

42.5. Mississippi v. Evers. (Miss. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 53.*

Jack Young, Esq., Jackson, Miss.

And see Kennard, 411.12.
43. Other agencies
50. Criminal Sanctions
51. Disorderly conduct

51.4. Talley v. People. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: IV DOCKET 40, 68, V DOCKET 46. Cite: 362 U.C. 60.

Case notes:

36 Ind. L. J. 306-17;

49 Ky. L. J. 423-28;

22 Ohio St. L. J. 220-24.
51.8. Storey v. Davis. (Cook Co. Super Ct., #60 S 9228.)*
51.11. California v. Meisenbach. (San Francisco Super. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 3. May 3, 1961: after 11 days of trial, jury acquitted Def. of all charges.

Newspaper comment:

Reprints on Meisenbach trial, 24 pp. 1961. Bay Area Students Comm. Against HUAC, 1732 Francisco, Berkeley.
51.16. New York v. Cartagena and Bonet. (NYC Magis. Ct.)*
51.19. South Carolina v. Carras, Stradley. (Sumter Muni. Ct.)*
52. Obscenity (see also 12, 14)

52.20. U.S. v. Frew. (ED Mich., #37517.)*
52.21. U.S. v. Steiner. (ED Mich., #37580.)*
52.22. Massachusetts v. Spiegel. (Cambridge Dist. Ct.)*

And see Spofford and Dorius, 303.27, 303.28, and Marcus, 52.30.
52.25. Mapp v. Ohio. (U.S.S.C.) See case following 303.29.
52.28. Gregory v. Ball, Dist. Atty.; N.Y. State Atty. Genl. Lefkowitz. (Erie Co. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4. Complaint dismissed.
52.30. Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property. (U.S.S.C., #225.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. reversed (9-0), Brennan, J.: Discretion to seize allegedly obscene materials cannot be confided to law enforcement officials without violating Due Process clause of Fourteenth Amendment, unless adequate safeguards are provided. Black, Douglas, JJ., concurring: Use by state of general warrant, that does not specifically describe things to be seized, violates prohibitions of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

And see Spofford and Dorius, 303.27, 303.28.
52.31. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan. (R.I. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4, 81. Nov. 3, 1961: appeal argued.

52.33 California v. Aday. (Alameda Co. Super. Ct., #31900.) (Cal. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4, 54. May 11, 1961: Calif. Sup. Ct. held: 1) search warrant was "so sweeping" as to include virtually all personal business property on premises, "placed no meaningful restriction"; 2) everything seized to be returned to Fresno Muni. Ct. which may refuse to return to Defs. any property it regards as obscene, except 3) all copies of two books were properly seized and may be held because of probable cause of their obscenity; 3) Alameda Co. Super. Ct. erred in ordering seized property taken to Alameda Co. before hearing could be held in Fresno re legality of seizure.
52.35. Tenney v. Liberty News Distributors. (formerly listed as N.Y. v. Manhattan News Co.) (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept.) Facts: VI DOCKET 81. May 29, 1961: App. Div. held ex parte stay against distribution of Defs'. publications not authorized; upheld temporary injunction; denied application for jury trial; held one of three Def. distributors entitled to separate trial.
52.37. Gerstein v. "Pleasure Was My Business". (11th Jud. Cir., Dade Co., Fla.) Facts: VI DOCKET 81. Amended complaint filed under new Fla. obscenity law. Pending.
52.38. New York v. Richmond Co. News, Inc. (N.Y. Ct. of App.) Def. charged with circulating an obscene publication, "Gent" magazine; convicted. App. Div., 2d Dept. reversed and dismissed, held magazine obscene, but no proof of Def's. scienter. May 26, 1961: N.Y. Ct. of App. (4-3) held: magazine not obscene. Majority definition (Fuld, J.): obscenity focuses "predominantly on what is sexually morbid, grossly perverse and bizarre without any artistic or scientific purpose or justification".
- 104 -

52.39. Lopert Pictures Corp. v. Atlanta Bd. of Censors. (Fulton Co. Super. Ct.) Def. Bd. refused to grant movie "Never on Sunday" a permit; Pl. sued for temporary restraining order against ban. May 3, 1961: Super. Ct. held city movie censorship law unconstitutional; vague and indefinite, violates First Amendment; censorship does not suppress obscenity.

Case note:

Anti-obscenity legislation: Pennsylvania v. Blumenstein (396 Pa. 417, 153 A. 2d 227, 1959), 12 W. Res. L. Rev. 425-30.
53. Defamation

53.1. Alabama v. Salisbury. (Bessemer Cir. Ct.)*

And see 61.11, 61.12.
53.2. California v. Michaels. (L.A. Dist. Ct. of App.)*
54. Sedition (see also 241-4)

54.1. U.S. v. Powell. (ND Calif., S. Div., #35065.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4-5. May 3, 1961: sedition indictment dismissed on ex parte motion of Gov't.; no other charges pending; case closed.
55. Picketing

55.4. Fair Share Organization v. Kroger Co., Local 1460-Retail Clerks Intl. Assn.-AFL-CIO. (Ind. App. Ct., Indianapolis.)*
55.7. Tennessee v. Defs. (Madison Co. Ct.)*
56. "Corrupt Practices"

56.3. Intl. Assn. of Machinists v. Street. (U.S.S.C., #4.) Def.-unions and carriers entered into union-shop agreement under Ry. Labor Act, §2, Eleventh. Defs. spent some dues for political purposes: financing campaigns of candidates for fedl. and state offices, supporting and opposing legislation. Pl.-union members sued to enjoin enforcement of union-shop agreement because they did not agree with political action taken with their union dues. Ga. Super. Ct. granted injunction. Ga. Sup. Ct. affirmed. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. (6-3) affirmed, Brennan, J.: Union shop contract is not unlawful; unions with such contracts are without power to use payments from workers for political causes workers say they oppose. Ct. ordered restitution to individual worker of % of union dues he paid which was spent for political causes with which he told union he disagreed. Douglas, J., conc. Frankfurter, J. (Harlan, J.) diss.: Cong. permitted union-shops on rrs., didn't require them; nothing in union rules prohibited Pl.-members from expressing their views for or against political candidates or issues; nothing in statute limited union expenditures for political activities; sound trade union principles require unions to participate in many issues not "reasonably necessary" to collective bargaining agreements with a specific employer; case should be reversed and remanded for dismissal. Black, J. diss.: §2, Eleventh is unconstitutional in authorizing union-shop contract over protesting Pls. here; Pls. should get back all dues and interest paid under protest against Union's political action. Whittaker, J., conc. in part, diss. in part.

And see Highlights.

Case note:

Federal estate tax: bequests to organizations engaged in influencing legislation: League of Women Voters v. U.S. (180 F. Supp. 379, c.d. 364 U.S. 322, 1960), 39 Tex. L. Rev. 525-29.
57. Vagrancy

57.2. Arizona v. Papcum. (Super. Ct.)*
58. Miscellaneous
See cases at 120.
58.14. New York v. Schmidt. (Upper Manhattan Arrest Ct.) Apr. 28, 1961: 7-800 demonstrators in City Hall Plaza during civil defense test drill; 47 arrested under NY Emergency Defense Act, sec. 102, for refusing to take cover. Most Defs. pleaded guilty. May 3: Magis. Phipps imposed $15 fines or 3 days on 8 Defs.: 4 served time. May 8: Magis. Phipps imposed 30 days sentences on 4 Defs. who said in ct. they intended to disregard future civil defense drills; $15. fines or 5 days on 4 other Defs. May 9: Magis. Maglio imposed 30 day sentence on Def.-student Just; after serving 3 days, Magis. Schreckinger suspended sentence after Def. refused to swear she would not protest annual drill next yr. May 10: Magis. Phipps imposed $25. or 5 days on 9 Defs.: 5 served time; May 10: Magis. Maglio acceded to defense counsel's request that young piano student not be pressed on whether she would disobey next drill; May 26: Magis. Vetrano imposed suspended sentence on Def. May 15: Magis. Bayer imposed $50. fines or 25 days on 10 Defs.: 5 served time; Def.-minister's sentence suspended. May 17: Magis. Wallach in Adolescent Ct. granted rehabilitation to NYU student who agreed not to defy civil defense law again. May 22: Magis. Bayer imposed $50. fines or 25 days on 4 Defs.; all paid. June 8: Magis. Gomez in Adolescent Ct. imposed 5 days on Def. because he was convicted in Richman, 120.20a.

C. Frank Ortloff, Esq., 535 Fifth Ave.; Joseph Glass, Esq., 60 Wall St.; Maxwell T. Cohen, Esq., 505 Fifth Ave., all of NYC, for some Defs.

And see Hoffman, 58.14a.
58.14a. New York v. Hoffman. (Spec. Sess.) Facts: similar to Schmidt, 58.14. May 9, 1961: Magis. Maglio imposed 60 days in workhouse on Def.-19 yr. old artist who said he would disobey future civil defense drills. May 25: Spec. Sess. granted Def. release on $100. bail pending appeal for reduction of "excessive and arbitrary" sentence. June 19, 1961: App. Term. affirmed sentence.

Kenneth Greenwalt, Esq., 1 Wall St., NYC.
58.15. New York v. Best. (Spring Valley Police Ct.) April 28, 1961: 4 Defs. arrested in Station Plaza during civil defense test [see 58.14]. Convicted; sentences: 2 to 5 days, $25. fine.
- 105 -

58.16. New York v. Fletcher. (Woodstock Justice of Peace Baungarten.) April 28, 1961: 5 Defs. arrested on village green during civil defense test [see 58.14]; Defs. pointed out Woodstock lacked fallout shelter. May 31: 3 Defs. Pleaded guilty; 5 days and $25.; 2 pleaded not guilty; released in $50. bail pending trial.
58.17. New Jersey v. Congdon. (Madison Magis. Ct.) April 28, 1961: 7 students (Drew Univ.) refused to take cover during civil defense test. May 18: Magis. fined 4 Defs. $35.; 3 Defs. $10.
58.18. New Hampshire v. Katz. (Hanover Muni. Ct.) April 28, 1961: 5 students (Dartmouth College) refused to take shelter during civil defense test. May 2: Defs. pleaded no contest; Muni. Ct. fined Defs. $15. each.

Peter P. Plante, Esq., Hanover, N.H.
58.19. New Hampshire v. Defs. (Durham Muni. Ct.) April 28, 1961: 18 Defs. arrested for failure to take cover during civil defense test. May 15-16: 14 Defs. pleaded not guilty; all 18 Defs. convicted; $25. to $50. fines. Appeals of 5 Defs. pending in N.H. Sup. Ct. 16 Defs., U. of N.H. students, placed on probation. May 22: U. Trs. directed suspension or dismissal of any student who refuses to obey any future civil defense alert.
60. Civil Sanctions
61. Defamation

61.4. Steinberg v. O'Connor. (DC Conn.)*
61.9. The New York Times v. Sullivan. (Ala. Sup. Ct., 3d Div. #961.) Facts: VI DOCKET 5-6, 55. Apr. 13, 1961: Def.-neswpaper posted $1,000,000. bond under Ala. law requiring appeal bond in twice the sum of verdict. Appeal pending.
61.9-1. Sullivan v. Montgomery Improvement Assn. (Montgomery Cir. Ct.) Pl. in 61.9 brought garnishment suit to collect on judgment against 4 Negro minister Defs. in 61.9 after their autos and land had been attached. Apr. 12, 1961: Cir. Ct. dismissed action when minister testified Def.-Assn. owed no salaries to 4 ministers.
61.9a. Commr. James v. The New York Times. (Montgomery Cir. Ct.)*
61.9b. Commr. Parks v. The New York Times. (ND Ala.)

and
61.10. Gov. Patterson v. The New York Times. (ND Ala.) Facts: VI DOCKET 6. Apr. 13, 1961: Def. filed removal petitions, alleging Def.-Ala. Negro ministers joined as parties Def. solely to prevent removal to federal ct.; Def.-ministers contend their names appeared in NY Times adv. without their consent. Apr. 13, 1961: Pls. filed motion to remand to state ct.
61.11. Mayor Morgan v. The New York Times. (CA 5, #18589.)

and
61.12. Bessemer City Commrs. v. The New York Times. (CA 5, #18589.) Facts: VI DOCKET 6. June 14, 1961: CA 5 reversed, held Def.-newspaper could not be served in Ala., remanded to DC for judgment for Def. on motions to quash service of process.

Amicus briefs filed by Chicago Tribune and Atlanta Newspaper, Inc.
61.13. Abernathy v. Montgomery Co. Cir. Ct. (CA 5, #19023.) Facts: VI DOCKET 82. Appeal pending.

And see Salisbury, 53.1.
61.14. Bridges v. Colonna. (Anne Arundel Co. Ct., Law #A-2417.) Pl., discharged official of Balt. Dept. of Aviation, sued superior for libel. Charge: Def. deliberately attempted to publicize reasons for discharge through 3 reporters. Reporters refused to disclose news source for stories re Pl's. discharge, under Art. 35, sec. 2, Md. Code. Super. Ct. upheld reporters. No appeal.

Wm. J. McWilliams, 212 Duke of Gloucester St., Annapolis.
62. Injunctions in labor disputes
63. Other injunctions
64. Miscellaneous

64.2. Re James L. Creighton. (U. of Calif. Academic Senate.) Facts: VI DOCKET 82. May 1, 1961: Academic Sen. voted to establish a special comm. to investigate complaint.
90. Miscellaneous Freedom of Thought

90.2. Westlake Subdivisions Improvement Assns. v. Klein. (San Mateo Super. Ct., #94100.) Facts: VI DOCKET 82. Def's. demurrer pending.

Belli, Ashe and Gerry, Esqs., 722 Montgomery, San Francisco 2.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION (100-199)
110. Separation of Church and State
Law review article:

Harry N. Rosenfield, Separation of church and state in the public schools, 22 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 561-89.


110.2. Spalding v. Wooley, et al. (Marion Co. Ct., Ky.)*
110.6. Schempp v. School Dist. of Abington Township. (ED Pa.)*
110.8. Engle v. Vitale. (N.Y. Ct. of App.) (11 App. Div. 2d 340, 206 NYS 2d 183.)*

Case note:

25 Alb. L. Rev. 318-21.
110.9. Snyder v. Town of Newtown. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 82. Cite: 365 U.S. 299.
110.10. Chamberlin v. Miami Bd. of Public Instruction. (11th Jud. Cir., Dade Co., #59 C 4928.)

and
110.10a. Resnick v. Dade Co. Bd. of Public Instruction. (11th Jud.
- 106 -

Cir., Dade Co.) Facts: VI DOCKET 7. Apr. 14, 1961: Cir. Ct.: 1) enjoined sectarian holiday observances in public schools (depicting Nativity and Crucifixion), and use of school facilities for afternoon religious classes by church groups as violative of U.S. and Fla. constitutions barring religious teachings on school property; 2) ruled Bible may be read in schools daily as required by Fla. law since no evidence of violation of restriction barring sectarian comment; 3) found no constitutional bar to saying Lord's Prayer and holding baccalaureate programs at which religious service given because attendance is optional; 4) denied injunction against display of religious symbols in school building during holidays because devised by children so no different from religious objects worn by children; 5) did not reach merits of Pls'. objections to religious tests for teachers holding Pls. without standing to complain. Appeal to be filed.
110.14. Anderson v. Swart (formerly Swart v. S. Burlington Town School Dist.) (U.S.S.C., #856.) Facts: VI DOCKET 7, 55, 82. May 15, 1961: U.S.S.C. denied petition for certiorari.

Case note:

29 Ford. L. Rev. 578-82.
110.17. Dickman v. School Dist. #62-c, Oregon City. (Ore. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 7. Jy. 5, 1961: heard en banc.
110.20. Brown v. Orange Co. Bd. of Pub. Inst. (Dist. Ct. of App., 2d Dist., Fla.) (Fla. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 55. Defs'. appeal pending.

Jerome J. Bornstein, Esq., 56 E. Pine St., Orlando, Fla.; Leo Pfeffer, Esq., 15 E. 84th St., NYC.
110.22. Murray v. Baltimore School Bd. (Balt. Co. Ct.)*
110.23. Anderson v. Redwood City. (San Mateo Co. Super. Ct.)*
110.24. In re Anonymous. (N.Y. Ct. of App.) Comm. on Character and Fitness, NY Bar, denied Appt's. application for admission to practice law. Appt. sued, alleging failure to give Appt. statement of charges against him, denial due to Appt's. rabbinical studies in violation of principle of separation of church and state. Sup. Ct. dismissed. June 9, 1961: N.Y. Ct. of App. reversed.

Herbert Monte Levy, Esq., 11 E. 44th St., NYC.

And see 265, 373.

Attorney Generals' Opinions:

Mar. 16, 1961: Ariz. Atty. Genl. Pickrell ruled school personnel cannot tell pupils in public class rooms where Gideon representatives will be distributing Gideon Bibles off school premises.

Mar. 15, 1961: Mich. Atty. Genl. Adams ruled illegal Bible instruction and distribution of materials by Rural Bible Mission in public schools.
120. Pacifists and Conscientious Objectors
See cases at 58.
120.17. U.S. v. Glover. (CA 8.) Facts: VI DOCKET 7-8. CA 8 reversed conviction for refusal to submit to induction into armed forces, held local draft bd's. failure to advise Def. of reason for fifth classification notice of Def. as 1-A (after Def. had four times explained claim for exemption for religious beliefs against war) was so "arbitrary, unfair" as to make unnecessary further exhaustion of administrative remedies.
120.18. U.S. v. Johnson, Taylor, Gallegos. (CA 9, ##16679, 16276, 16725.)*
120.20a. U.S. v. Richman. (DC Conn.) Facts: VI DOCKET 8, 56, 83, #120.20. Apr. 27, 1961: Def. Henry pleaded guilty; 1-yr. suspended, 2 yrs. probation after release from 1 yr. in 120.23. 3 Defs. tried by jury, 4 Defs. by ct. May 23, 1961: 7 convicted of seeking to interfere with launching 2 nuclear submarines Nov. 22 and Jan. 28, 1961. June 19, 1961: sentenced to 20 days, 30 days, 90 days, 4 yrs.
120.21. U.S. v. Defendants. (ED S.C.)*
130. Denial of Tax Exemptions
140. Sunday Closing Laws

140.16. Morein v. Furman, N.J. Atty. Genl. (DC N.J.)*
140.10. Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. (U.S.S.C., #11.) Facts: VI DOCKET 8. May 29, 1961: U.S.S.C. reversed (6-3);

and
140.10a. Braunfeld v. Brown. (U.S.S.C., #67.) 5 Orthodox Jewish retailers sought injunction against Pa. Sunday closing laws as applied to them. DC dismissed complaint. May 29, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (6-3), Warren, C.J., agreed that laws make "the practice of their religious beliefs more expensive" for those who celebrate Sat. as Sabbath and must therefore lose Sun. business also, but found state power to so provide. Frankfurter, Harlan concurring in seperate opinion. Douglas, J. diss. Brennan and Stewart, JJ., diss.
140.19. Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley. (U.S.S.C., #36.)

and
140.20. McGowan v. Maryland. (U.S.S.C., #8.) Facts: VI DOCKET 8. May 29, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (8-1), Warren, C.J., holding no denial of equal protection due to exemptions of certain businesses from Sun. closing laws since states have broad powers of classification: "It is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most ["blue laws"], at least, are of a secular rather than of a religious character". Douglas, J., diss.
140.25. Caroline Amusement Co. v. Martin. (U.S.S.C., #424.) Facts: VI DOCKET 8. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. dismissed appeal, denied cert.; Douglas and Brennan, JJ. for noting probable juris.
140.26. Giant Tiger Drugs, Inc. v. Ohio. (U.S.S.C.) Def. Co. fined $25. for operating store in Euclid on Sun. Ct. upheld constitutionality of Sun. closing law. June 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. dismissed Def's. appeal.
140.27. New York v. Welt. (Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dept.) (8 N.Y. 2d 961, 168 N.E. 2d 854.) Dist. Ct. convicted owner
- 107 -

of automatic laundry for operating on Sun. Co. Ct. reversed. App. Div. Affirmed reversal, dismissing 451 violations of state law for which owners of automatic laundries had been fined $2,255.

Hyman Bravin, Esq., Bronx, NY.

And see 140.28.
140.28. Am. Automatic Laundry Fdation. v. NYC. (NY Sup. Ct.) June 7, 1961: Sup. Ct. held invalid NYC ordinance prohibiting coin operated laundries from operating on Sun.; upheld sec. requiring that such laundries have attendant on duty daily 6 pm to midnight, close midnight to 6 am, to discourage crime.
150. Miscellaneous Restrictions

150.1. Prisoners v. Folsom Prison Warden. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) Mar. 3, 1961: 10 Negro inmates petitioned Calif. Sup. Ct. to require prison authorities to let them practice Muslim religion. Defs. allege sect is not a religion, its sufferance would present a "clear and present danger" in maximum security institution. Pending.
ASSOCIATION: As affecting the organization itself (200-239)
200. Privileges
201. Meetings (and see 11)
202. Tax exemption

202.1. Communist Party v. Moysey. (U.S. Tax Ct.)*
203. N.L.R.B. Certification (see also 245, 291)

203.3. R. Dennis v. U.S. (CA 10; DC Colo.)*

And see Brown, 245.1, West, 291.20.
204. Continued existence (see also 213, 223)
See Highlander Folk School, 244.6.
204.1. Ex parte N.A.A.C.P.; Alabama ex rel. MacDonald v. N.A.A.C.P. (Montgomery Co. Cir. Ct.)*

And see 204.1a
204.1a. N.A.A.C.P. v. Ala. Officials. (CA 5.) 1956: Pl. sought fedl. injunction against Defs. enforcing state injunction prohibiting Pl. from operating in Ala. (see 204.1 history.) DC dismissed Pl's. suit. May 16, 1961: CA 5 reversed dismissal.
204.3. Revenue Commr. of Ga. v. N.A.A.C.P. (Fulton Super. Ct., Atlanta Jud. Cir., #A-58654.)*
204.4. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Harrison. (ED Va., #2436.)*
204.4a. N.A.A.C.P. v. Harrison. (U.S.S.C., #689.)*
204.4b. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund v. Harrison. (Richmond Cir. Ct., #B-2879.)*
204.4c. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar. v. N.A.A.C.P. (Richmond Chancery Ct., #503.)*
204.6. Arkansas v. N.A.A.C.P. (Cir. Ct., Pulaski Co.)*
204.7. Arkansas ex rel. Atty. Genl. v. N.A.A.C.P. (Cir. Ct., Pulaski Co.)*
204.8. Arkansas ex rel. Bennett v. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund. (Cir. Ct., Pulaski Co., #44,679.) Facts: VI DOCKET 10. May 13, 1961: Cir. Ct. ruled unconstitutional Acts 12, 14, 16, Ark. 1958 Spec. Sess.: to permit admr. officer to request membership list from organization; to prohibit "unnecessary" litigation re admr. of public schools; to make criminal the giving of money as inducement to person to file lawsuit. Ct. held acts vague, too broad.
204.9. Arkansas ex rel. Bennett v. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Education Fund. (Cir. Ct., Pulaski Co., #45,183.) Facts: VI DOCKET 10. May 18, 1961: Cir. Ct. dismissed on ground ct. had no authority to prohibit N.A.A.C.P. from practicing law in Ark.
204.16. La. ex rel. Gremillion, Atty. Genl. v. N.A.A.C.P.

and
204.17. New Orleans Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Martin, Secy. of State, (U.S.S.C., #294.) Facts: VI DOCKET 10. May 22, 1961: US.S.C. affirmed (9-0) Douglas, J.: It is not consonant with due process to require a person to swear to a fact that he cannot be expected to know, or alternatively to refrain from a wholly lawful activity. Freedom of association is included in the bundle of First Amendment rights made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And where it is shown that disclosure of membership lists results in reprisals against and hostility to the members, disclosure is not required. Harlan and Stewart, JJ. concurred in the result. Frankfurter and Clark JJ. concurred in the judgment.
210. Compulsory Registration
211. 1950 Internal Security Act

211.1. Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. (U.S.S.C., #12.) Facts: VI DOCKET 10-11. June 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4), per Frankfurter, J.: held 1) registration requirement in §7, Internal Security Act, constitutional under First Amendment (rejecting Black, J. diss.); 2) evidence before S.A.C.B. supported finding that C.P. is foreign dominated under §3(3) even tho no proof that foreign govt. has coercive power to exact compliance (see Warren, C. J., diss.); 3) S.A.C.B. finding that Party advocates overthrow by force "if necessary" meets§§2, 3(3) subversive "objectives" test (see Warren, C.J., diss.); 4) premature to decide whether §§7(a), (c) requiring registration by C.P. officers constitute violation of Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege (rejecting four JJ. diss.); 5) S.A.C.B. rulings on 4 points did not abuse discretion (rejecting Warren, C.J. diss.)

Black, J. diss.: should decide now that whole Act is unconstitutional: under First Amendment for denying freedom of speech and association; under Fifth Amendment due process and self-incrimination provisions; as bill of attainder providing statutory outlawry of organization. (See Highlights).

Warren, C.J. diss.: would remand for correction of four non-constitutional errors (see Highlights); concurs with Brennan, J.

- 108 -

Douglas, J. diss.: Registration sec. not unconstitutional under First Amendment; constitutionality of registration sec. should be settled now; it is void as conflicting with self-incrimination privilege; C.P. can claim privilege for members.

Brennan, J. diss.: Registration sec. not unconstitutional as invasion of First Amendment rights; not necessary to decide now constitutionality of other sections re sanctions on C.P. and members; should decide now validity of §7(d); it is void as conflicting with Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege.

June 23, 1961: Frankfurter, J. granted Pet's. stay pending decision on petition for rehearing.

And see Scales, 242.2, Noto, 242.4.
211.2. Jefferson School v. S.A.C.B. (CA DC.)*
211.3. Labor Youth League v. S.A.C.B. (CA DC)*
211.4. Nat'l. Council of American-Soviet Friendship v. S.A.C.B. (CA DC.)*
211.5. Kennedy v. Civil Rights Congress. (S.A.C.B., #106-53.)*
211.6. Kennedy v. Washington Pension Union. (S.A.C.B., #114-55.)*
211.7. Haufrecht v. S.A.C.B. (re American Peace Crusade) (S.A.C.B., #117-56.)*
211.8. California Labor School in San Francisco v. S.A.C.B. (CA DC.)*
211.9. Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born v. S.A.C.B. (CA DC., #15,960.)*
211.10. Kennedy v. California Emergency Defense Commitee. (S.A.C.B.)*
211.12. Blau v. S.A.C.B. (re Colo. Comm. to Protect Civil Liberties.)*
212. 1954 Communist Control Act

212.1. Kennedy v. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers. (S.A.C.B.)*
213. State Laws
220. Listing
221. By the Attorney General of the United States

221.5. Kennedy v. Californians for the Bill of Rights. (Dept. of Justice.)*
221.6. Kennedy v. Natl. Council of Arts, Sciences and Professions. (Dept. of Justice.)*
222. By Congressional Committees
And see cases at 271.
222.1. Wheeldin v. Wheeler. (CA 9.)*
223. By State authorities
ASSOCIATION: As affecting members (240-299)
240. Criminal Penalties for Membership
241. Smith Act: conspiracy

241.8. Bary, et al. v. U.S. (CA 10.) Facts: VI DOCKET 12. May 31, 1961: CA 10 reversed second conviction and remanded for new trial in DC.
241.14. Winston v. U.S. (Pres. Kennedy.) Facts: VI DOCKET 12. June 30, 1961: Pres. Kennedy commuted Def's. sentence to time served.

And see Winston, 411.11.
242. Smith Act: mere membership

242.1. U.S. v. Lightfoot. (ND Ill. E.D.) Facts: VI DOCKET 12. Trial date: May 1, 1961.
242.2. Scales v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #1.) Facts: VI DOCKET 12. June 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. (5-4) affirmed conviction, Harlan, J.: 1) membership clause of Smith Act "on its face, much less as we construe it in this case, . . . neither proscribes membership in Communist organizations, as such, but only in organizations engaging in advocay of violent overthrow, nor punishes membership in that kind of organization except as to one 'knowing the purposes thereof', and, as we have interpreted the clause, with a specific intent to further those purposes. We have also held that the proscribed membership must be active, and not nominal, passive or theoretical". 2) "We conclude that [Congress] did not [intend a partial repeal of the membership clause of the Smith Act] and hold that this prosecution is not barred by §4(f) of the Internal Security Act of 1950". 3) [fn.] ". . . there is no great difference between a charge of being a member in a group which engages in criminal conduct and being a member of a large conspiracy, many of whose participants are unknown or not before the ct." 4) No First Amendment problems; they were settled in Dennis. 5) "Hence this record cannot be considered deficient because it contains no evidence of advocacy of immediate overthrow".

Black, J., diss. with Brennan, J., and Douglas, J., also: "It seems clear to me that neither pet. nor anyone else could ever have guessed that this law would be held to mean what this Court now holds it does mean. For that reason, it appears that pet. has been convicted under a law that is, at best, unconstitutionally vague and, at worst, ex post facto".

Douglas, J., diss.: "When we allow pet. to be sentenced to prison for six yrs. for being a "member" of the Communist Party, we make a sharp break with traditional concepts of First Amendment rights . . . [citing also Mark Twain]". "There is here no charge of conspiracy, no charge of any overt act to overthrow the Gov't. by force and violence, no charge of any other criminal act". "Not one single illegal act is charged to pet. That is why the essence of the crime covered by the indictment is merely belief — belief in the proletarian revolution, belief in Communist creed".

Brennan, J., (Warren, C.J., Douglas, J.) diss.: "The legislative history of §4(f) [Internal Security Act] is murky but I think there clearly emerges a congressional decision to extend immunity from prosecution for any membership in a Communist organization in order to safeguard against constitutional frustration the policy of disclosure embodied in the registration provisions" . . . "By reading §4(f) to

- 109 -

provide that being a member of the Communist Party shall not 'constitute per se' a crime, immunity from prosecution under the membership clause of the Smith Act is effected. And that is in full harmony with the purpose to make something more than 'membership' necessary for conviction. That something more can be some kind of unlawful activity. After the 1950 Act was passed, membership without other activity was no longer sufficient for Smith Act prosecutions".
242.3. Blumberg v. U.S. (DC Pa.)*
242.4. Noto v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #9.) Facts: VI DOCKET 12. June 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. unanimously reversed, Harlan, J.: see opinion in Scales, 242.2; this case tried before Yates, 354 U.S. 298, described evidence sufficient to support conviction; no such evidence here. Brennan, J. (Warren, C.J.) would remand to DC to dismiss because prosecution barred by 4(f), Internal Security Act. Douglas, J., joins Brennan, J., would remand for dismissal because "utterances, attitudes, and associations in this case, . . . are in my view wholly protected by the First Amendment and not subject to inquiry, examination, or prosecution by the Fedl. Govt." Black, J., would reverse solely on First Amendment grounds.
242.5. U.S. v. Weiss. (ND Ill. E.D.)*
242.7. U.S. v. Russo. (DC Mass.)*
242.8. Hellman v. U.S. (CA 9.)*
243. 18 U.S.C. 2384
244. Kennedy-Landrum-Griffin Act (29 U.S.C. 504) (see also 203, 291)

244.1. U.S. v. Brown. (ND Calif., S. Div.) May 1961: Def.—elected union official — indicted for "unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully" serving on exec. bd., Intl. Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, "while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation" of Kennedy-Landrum-Griffin Act. Released on $5,000. bail. Jy. 6, 1961: argument on Def's. motion to dismiss because sec. violates First Amendment, deprives union of right to elect officials of own choice.

Norman Leonard, Esq., 240 Montgomery, San Francisco.
245. State laws

245.6. Tennessee ex rel. Sloan v. Highlander Folk School. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 13, 84. May 5, 1961: Tenn. Sup. Ct. denied rehearing, granted stay pending appeal to U.S.S.C.
250. Civil Disabilities: Federal
251. Federal employment (and see 268)
See cases at 30.5, 30.6.
251.15. Dew v. Quesada. (DC DC, #4079-60.)*
252. Deprivation of passport rights, right to travel

252.52. U.S. v. Reynolds. (CA 9.) Facts: VI DOCKET 13, 58, 84. Cite: 286 F. 2d 433.
253. Unfavorable Army discharges

253.9. Olenick v. Brucker. (Army Sec. Bd.)*
253.51. Dr. Belsky v. U.S. (U.S. Ct. of Claims.) Facts: VI DOCKET 13-4. June 7, 1961: Ct. unanimously granted Pl's. motion for summary judgment, entered judgment for difference between pay received as private doing work of Dr. and captain's pay which he should have received for doing Dr's. work in Army.
254. Deprivation of veterans disability payments

254.2. Thompson v. Whittier. (CA DC.) (Cites: appeal dismissed: 365 U.S. 465; below: 185 F. Supp. 306). Facts: VI DOCKET 14, 84.*

Case note:

29 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 580-83.
255. Deprivation of Social Security rights
256. Deprivation of housing rights
257. Deprivation of Federal licenses

257.3. Borrow v. Federal Communications Commission. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 14. Cite for cert. den.: 364 U.S. 892.

Case note:

59 Mich. L. Rev. 638-40.
257.5. Cronan v. Federal Communications Commission. (U.S.S.C., #792.) Facts: VI DOCKET 14. Apr. 24, 1961: U.S.S.C. denied petition for cert: 366 U.S. 904.
258. Deportation proceedings (see also 358)

258.7. Wolf v. Boyd. (U.S.S.C., #858 Misc.) Facts: VI DOCKET 14, 57. May 7, 1961: U.S.S.C. denied petition for cert: 365 U.S. 888 (below: 287 F 2d 520.)
258.9. Gastelum-Quinones v. Rogers. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 58, 84. Cites: 286 F. 2d 824, cert. den. 365 U.S. 871.
259. Denaturalization and Naturalization proceedings (see also 358)
260. Civil Disabilities: State, Local and Private
261. State or local governmental employment (see also 343)

261.1. Wilkins v. Carlander. (Super. Ct., Kings Co., #490844.)*
261.3. Hehir v. NYC Transit Authority. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Co., App. Div.)*
261.7. Crowe v. County of Wayne, Mich. (Mich. Sup. Ct.)*
261.15. Dvorman v. School Bd. (Orange Co. Super. Ct., Calif.) Facts: VI DOCKET 15, 85. Ct. upheld recall election. Apr. 18, 1961: Pl. recalled from part-time, non-paying position as trustee of Magnolia School Dist. by 2,200-700 vote.
262. Teaching (see also 267, 280 and 342)
Law review article:Frederick Davis, Enforcing academic tenure: reflections and suggestions, 1961 Wis. L. Rev. 200-20.
- 110 -

262.2. Bd. of Trustees, Lasson Union High School v. Owens. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., 3d App. Dist.)*
263. Denial of State unemployment insurance rights (see also 346)

263.1a. Syrek v. Calif. Unemp. Ins. App. Bd. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) Facts: IV DOCKET 12, V DOCKET 27, 79. Cite: 354 P. 2d 625.

Case notes:

9 Kan. L. Rev. 346-48;

36 N.Y.U. L. R. 1052-60;

34 So. Cal. L. Rev. 367-73.
263.2. Communist Party v. Catherwood. (U.S.S.C., #495.) (8 NY 2d 77, 168 N.E. 2d 242.) Facts: VI DOCKET 15, 85. June 12, 1961: U.S.S.C. unanimously reversed, Harlan, J.: Communist Control Act of 1954, in providing that Communist Party is "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the" U.S. or any political subdivision, did not provide that Party could not participate in fedl. unemployment compensation arrangement permitting employer to profit from state experience rating by crediting state tax against fedl. tax; Act raises novel constitutional questions not reached here. Black, J., concurring.

Case note:

22 Ohio St. L. J. 244-47.
264. Denial of State licenses

264.1. Torcaso v. Watkins. (U.S.S.C., #373.) Facts: VI DOCKET 15. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. reversed denial of notary commission (9-0), Black, J.: Neither state nor Fedl. Gov't. can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion; neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers; neither can aid those religions based on belief in existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. Frankfurter, Harlan, JJ. concurred in result.

Case notes:

36 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 513-22;

47 Va. L. Rev. 315-29;

10 Buff. L. Rev. 372-80.

And see Wirin, 280.11.
264.3. Sabel v. N.Y. Motor Vehicle Commr. Hults. (N.Y. Ct. of App.)*
265. Proceedings against attorneys and Bar applicants (see also 345, 373)

265.4. In re Schlesinger. (Pa. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 15-16. Mar. 17, 1961: argued.
265.5. In re Steinberg. (Allegheny Co. Common Pleas Ct., Pa.)*
265.21. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California. (U.S.S.C., #28.) and
265.23. In re Anastaplo. (U.S.S.C., #58) Facts: VI DOCKET 16. Apr. 24, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4) Harlan, J.: It is not constitutionally impermissible for a state legislatively, or through court-made regulation, to adopt a rule that an applicant will not be admitted to the practice of law if, and so long as, by refusing to answer material questions, he obstructs a bar examining committee in its proper functions of interrogating and cross-examining him upon his qualifications. The state's interest in enforcing such a rule as applied to refusals to answer questions about Communist Party membership outweighs any deterrent effect upon freedom of speech and association, and hence such state action does not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. Black, J. (Warren, C.J., and Douglas, J.) diss.: The First Amendment, as made controlling upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, precludes a state from denying an applicant admission to its bar for refusing to answer questions as to Communist Party membership. The majority's "balancing test", that permits constitutionally protected rights to be balanced away whenever a majority of this Court thinks that a State might have interest sufficient to justify abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association, tells us that no right to think, speak or publish exists in the people that cannot be taken away if the government finds it sufficiently imperative or expedient to do so. The First Amendment's unequivocal command that there shall be no abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly shows that the men who drafted our Bill of Rights did all the balancing that was to be done in this field. The interest in free association at stake here is not merely the personal interest of petitioner in being free from burdens that may be imposed upon him for his past beliefs and associations. It is the interest of all the people in having a society in which no one is intimidated with respect to his beliefs or associations. Brennan, J. (Warren, C.J.) diss.: The Committee of Bar Examiners did not come forward with evidence to show that the Pet. unlawfully advocated the overthrow of the government. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the Pet. from being denied admission to the bar for his refusal to answer the questions.
265.25. Marshall v. State Bar of California. (Calif. Sup. Ct.)*
265.26. In re Application of Brooks. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 16, 85. Cite: 365 U.S. 813.
266. Deprivation of right to tax exemption
267. Private employment — teaching (see also 262, 280 and 342)
268. Private employment — defense establishments (see also 344)

268.1a. Graham v. Richmond. (U.S. Coast Guard App. Bd.)*
268.1b. Homer v. Richmond. (CA DC.) Facts: VI DOCKET 17. CA DC reversed DC to extent that Def. ordered to hold hearing if applicants specifically request it, with right to submit interrogatories to applicants in advance of hearing.
- 111 -

268.5c. Dressler v. U.S. (U.S. Ct. of Claims, #59-60.)*
268.7. Kreznar v. Wilson. (DC DC.)*
268.11. Lundquist v. Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn., Local 97. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., 1st Div.)*
268.14. Cafeteria and Rest. Workers Union, Local 743 and Brawner v. McElroy. (U.S.S.C., #97.) Facts: VI DOCKET 17. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4), dismissal of cook in Naval Gun Factory, Stewart, J.: Notice and hearing are not constitutionally required where private interest involved is mere privilege. Brennan, J., (Warren, C.J., Black, Douglas, JJ., diss.: Pet. has, at least, right to be told reason for his exclusion as "security risk", as reason may be one forbidden by Constitution. The designation "security risk" ought not to be affixed to a person without some statement of charges and opportunity to speak in reply.

Case note:

36 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 506-13.
269. Private employment — Other

269.1. Faulk v. AWARE, Inc. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.)*
270. Criminal Penalties for Non-disclosure (see also 330)
271. Congressional Committees (see also 222, 330)
Pamphlet:

David Wesley, Hate groups and the Un-American Activities Comm., E.C.L.C., 421 - 7th Ave., NYC. 25c.


271.1. Barenblatt v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: IV DOCKET 15, 96. Cite: 360 U.S. 109.

Case note:

9 Kan. L. Rev. 70-72.
271.9. Russell v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #239.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for cert.
271.10. Deutch v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. June 12, 1961: U.S.S.C. (5-4) reversed conviction, Stewart, J.: Pet. basically cooperative witness, answering all questions re his own political affiliation, declining only to answer re others; Gov't. must prove 2 kinds of pertinency: 1) that Comm. explained pertinency of questions to witness if witness asked, which this Def. did not clearly do; 2) that questions were pertinent to matter Comm. was inquiring into, which HUAC did not do here because hearings were on a different geographical area and different part of population from Def., not on Ithaca or education. Harlan, J. (Frankfurther, J.), diss.; Whittaker, J. (Clark, J.) diss.
271.12. Gojack v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #313 Misc.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. June 5, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for certiorari.
271.13. U.S. v. Metcalf. (SD Ohio.)*
271.15. Shelton v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #246.) (Cert. granted: 365 U.S. 857.)*
271.16. Whitman v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #300.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for cert.
271.19. Price v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #331.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C.granted petition for cert.
271.20. Liveright v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #328.) Facts: VI DOCKE 18. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for cert.
271.23. U.S. v. Sullivan. (SD NY, #152-238.)*
271.24. U.S. v. Yarus. (SD NY, #15586.)*
271.25. U.S. v. Seeger. (CA 2.)*
271.27. Hartman v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 18. CA 9 affirmed conviction, citing Wilkinson, Braden, 271.31, 32, finding probable cause for issuance of HUAC subpoena in fact that subpoena was issued. Petition for rehearing pending.
271.28. Grumman v. U.S. (CA DC.)*
271.29. Silber v. U.S. (CA DC.)*
271.30. U.S. v. Feuer. (ED La., #26,322.)*
271.31. Wilkinson v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 19, 85. Cite: 365 U.S. 399.
271.32. Braden v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 19, 86. Cite: 365 U.S. 431.
271.33. Yellin v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.)*
271.34. U.S. v. Lehrer. (ND Ind.)*
271.35. U.S. v. Malis. (ND Ind.)*
271.36. U.S. v. Samter. (ND Ind.)*
271.37. Turoff v. U.S. (CA 2.)*
271.40. U.S. v. O'Connor. (ND N.J.)*
271.42. U.S. v. Popper. (DC DC.) Facts: VI DOCKET 19. Def. convicted after trial; awaiting sentence.
271.43. Wheeldin v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.)*
271.45. Hutcheson v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #701.)*
271.47. U.S. v. Tobin. (DC DC.)*

And see cases at 222, and Meisenbach, 51.11.
271.a. Pauling v. Eastland. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 19, 59. Cite for CA: 288 F. 2d 126.
272. State committees

272.2. New Hampshire v. Uphaus. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 20, 59. Cite: 364 U.S. 388.

Case note:

61 Colum. L. Rev. 725-39.
272.3. DeGregory v. Wyman, Atty. Genl. of N.H. (N.H. Sup. Ct.)*
272.4. N.A.A.C.P. v. Ames. (ED Va.)*
- 112 -

272.10. Rev. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigating Comm. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 20, 60. May 8, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for cert.

And see cases at 204, 213.
273. Legal and administrative tribunals
274. Refusal to produce records

274.3. McPhaul v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: V DOCKET 29, 81. Cite: 364 U.S. 372.

Case notes:

63 W. Va. L. Rev. 274-77;

29 Ford. L. Rev. 582-86.
280. Civil Penalties for Non-disclosure (see also 342)

280.1. Nostrand v. Little. (formerly listed as Savelle v. U. of Washington.) (Wash. S. Ct.) (362 U.S. 474.)*

Case note:

28 U. Chi. L. Rev. 355-62.

And see cases at 221.
280.5b. Re Nash. (N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ.)*
280.5c. Adler v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)*
280.8. Allen v. Office Employees' Intl. Union. (Wash. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 21. Jury trial verdict for Defs. Appeal pending.
280.11. Wirin v. Ostly. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) Facts: VI DOCKET 21, 60. May 2, 1961: Dist. Ct. of App. held oath requirement constitutional, citing Pocman v. Leonard. Petition for hearing pending in Calif. Sup. Ct.

And see Torcaso, 264.1.
280.12. Collins v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (Santa Ana Super. Ct., Calif., #86390.)*
280.13. Carr v. Young. (U.S.S.C.)

and
280.14. Shelton v. Tucker. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 21, 60. Cite: 364 U.S. 479.

Case notes:

36 Ind. L. J. 306-17;

41 B.U. L. Rev. 269-72.
280.15. Cramp v. Bd. of Public Instruction, Orange Co., Fla. (U.S.S.C., #849.) Facts: VI DOCKET 22. May 29, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted petition for cert.
280.16. Re William and Rita Mack. (Calif. Bd. of Educ.) Facts: VI DOCKET 60. H'g. officer recommended revocation of credentials, found Pets. knew Communist Party advocated violent overthrow. Calif. Bd. of Educ. affirmed revocation.
290. Penalties for False Disclosure
291. Taft-Hartley Oath (see also 203, 245)

291.6. U.S. v. Killian. (U.S.S.C., #141.) (Cert. granted: 365 U.S. 810.)*
291.7. U.S. v. Fred and Marie Haug. (ND Ohio ED.)*

And see West, 291.20.
291.20. U.S. v. West, Haug. (ND Ohio ED.) Facts: VI DOCKET 22, 87. May 6, 1961: DC ordered Marie Haug to begin 18 mth. sentence now, Fred Haug to begin sentence 10 days after her release, for benefit of their 10 yr. old daughter; granted Lumer 90-day delay in entering prison due to wife's medical condition; denied Defs'. petitions for reduction of sentence. Cite for cert. denied: 365 U.S. 811.

And see Haug, 291.7, R. Dennis, 203.3.
292. Government Security Questionnaires

292.2. Ogden v. U.S. (CA 9.)*
293. Miscellancous

293.2. U.S. v. Hucks. (DC DC, Cr. 384-60.) Def. hotel telephone operator indicted for: perjury before McClellan Labor-Management Comm., obstructing Comm. work, influencing witness before grand jury. Charge: Def. caused destruction of records concerning phone calls by Teamsters Union pres. Hoffa. Dec. 7, 1960: during trial Def's. counsel, with Gov't. counsel (Def's. neighbor), moved to have Def. committed to mental institution and mistrial declared. Def. objected; dismissed counsel. Mistrial declared; Def. committeed. Dec. 1960: new counsel filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus; third petition granted; psychiatrist found Def. sane. Feb. 27, 1961: Def's. husband fired by his employer, C.I.A., for refusal to become Gov't. witness in this case; denied unempolyment compensation for misconduct; later compensation granted. DC granted Def's. petition to proceed in forma pauperis; lasted 7 weeks, 4,000 pp. transcript. May 26, 1961: Def. convicted; 20 mths. to 5 yrs. Co-Def. Herman, former Teamster, convicted; 1-3 yrs. suspended. June 6, 1961: DC denied petition to appeal in forma pauperis. Principle appeal and from denial of petition pending in CA DC. Issues, inter alia: 1) breadth of authorizing resolution of Comm.; 2) presence of many Gov't. employees on trial jury; 3) pertinency of questions asked Def.; 4) trial ct's. rejection of testimony re dismissal of Def's. husband to show improper conduct of Gov't.; 5) former jeopardy; 6) unreasonable search and seizure.

Benedict F. FitzGerald, Jr., Charles E. Robbins, Esqs., 983 National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C.
295. Right of Privacy

295.3. St. Regis Paper Co. v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #704.) (24 F.R.D. 366, 181 F. Supp. 862, 285 F. 2d 607.) Fedl. Trade Comm., investigating Pl. Co's. acquisition of other paper cos., requested confidential reports prepared by mfrers. for Bureau of Census. Def. refused. Def. Co. indicted for violating 15 U.S.C. §46(b), §50; convicted; CA 2 affirmed. Mar. 27, 1961: U.S.S.C. granted cert., tolled running of daily forfeiture
- 113 -

of $100. for failure to furnish report to FTC. Argument: Fall, 1961.

Comment:

The right of privacy in Wisconsin, 1961 Wis. L. Rev. 332-38.

Case note:

Republication of news story containing Pl's. name as part of advertisement violates N.Y. privacy act: Flores v. Mosler Safe Co. (7 N.Y. 2d 276, 164 N.E. 2d 853, 196 N.Y.S. 2d 975), 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1238-41.
II. DUE PROCESS AND RELATED RIGHTS (FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS) (300-499)

Law review articles:

Frank C. Newman. The process of prescribing "due process", 49 Cal. L. Rev. 215-39.

Frank C. Newman and Thomas M. Clusserath, What agencies are exempt from Admr. Procedure Act? 36 N. Dame Lawyer 320, 325.

Comment:

The duty of the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence, 60 Colum. L. Rev. 858-70.

Law review article:

Anders Bratholm, Compensation of persons wrongfully accused in Norway, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 833-45.

Case note:

Testing constitutionality of a criminal statute before violation: Memorial Trusts, Inc. v. Beery (356 P. 2d 884, Colo. 1960), 33 R. Mt. L. Rev. 235-37.

300. Searches and Seizures
301. Wirelapping

301.11. U.S. v. Silverman. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 23, 87. Cite: 365 U.S. 505.
301.12. Pugach v. Dolinger. (U.S.S.C., #111.) Facts: VI DOCKET 23, 87. Correction: 365 U.S. 458 affirmed 277 F. 2d 739, which affirmed denial of injunction by DC.

Case notes:

36 Wash. L. Rev. 93-101;

9 Kans. L. Rev. 328-31;

29 Fordham L. Rev. 586-92;

60 Colum. L. Rev. 871-77.
302. Other Federal cases

302.11. Wirin v. Hilden. (SD Calif.)*
302.14. Elkins and Clark v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: V DOCKET 83.

Cite: 364 U.S. 206.

Case notes:

39 N.C.L. Rev. 193-98;

7 How. L. J. 72-75;

22 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 614-17;

32 Miss. L. J. 214-15;

49 Geo. L. J. 144-48.
302.16. U.S. v. Moore. (CA 5.)*
302.17. Wilson v. Schnettler. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 87. Cite: 365 U.S. 381.
302.18. Chapman v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #175.) (272 F. 2d 70.) Acting without a warrant but with consent of Pet's. landlord, Ga. law enforcement officers entered through unlocked window, searched Pet's. rented house in his absence, seized distillery and mash. Pet. indicted for violating feld. liquor laws. Motion to suppress evidence denied, DC holding search and seizure lawful under fedl. standards. CA affirmed. Apr. 3, 1961: U.S.S.C. reversed (8-1): Whittaker, J.: Inconvenience to officers and slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present evidence to magistrate alone are insufficient reasons for not obtaining search warrant. Private property law concerning landlord and tenant should not be imported into law surrounding constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Black and Frankfurter, JJ. concurred separately. Clark, J. diss.

Law review article:

Julius Berman and Paul Oberst, Admissibility of evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and sseizure — fedl. problem, 55 N.W.U. L. Rev. 525-52.
303. Other State cases (and see 420)

303.5. Franklin v. Gough. (Los Angeles Superior Ct.)*
303.9. Eaton v. Price. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: V DOCKET 83. Cite: 364 U.S. 263.

Case note:

7 How. L. J. 80-87.
303.10. Swanson v. McGuire. (ND Ill., #57-C-1164.)*
303.14. Cedeno v. Lichenstein. (ND Ill., #58-C-1712.)*
303.17. Massey v. NYC Police Commr. (Queens Co. Ct.)*
303.19. Jackson v. City of New York. (NYC Comptroller.)*
303.20. Michaels v. Chappel. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 24. May 29, 1961: U.S.S.C. denied cert., Warren, C.J. voted for cert.
303.22. New York v. Walker. (Mineola 1st Dist. Ct.)*
303.26. Monroe v. Pape. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 24, 88. Cite: 365 U.S. 167.

Case note:

The Civil Rights Act and Mr. Monroe, 49 Calif. L. Rev. 145-71.
303.27. Massachusetts v. Spofford. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.)*
303.28. Dorius v. Massachusetts. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.)*
- 114 -

And see Marcus, 52.30.
303.29. Dahlgren v. Clary. (Dist. Ct. of App., Calif.) Facts: VI DOCKET 24, 88. Appeal pending.
52.25. Mapp v. Ohio. (U.S.S.C., #236.) Facts: VI DOCKET 4. State officers forcibly entered Def's. home, seized obscene materials, but considerable doubt whether search warrant ever issued. Seized materials admitted in evidence; Def. convicted. June 19, 1961: U.S.S.C. reversed (6-3), Clark, J.: "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court". Fourth Amendment is applicable to states by virtue of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Black, J.: concurred: When Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires exclusion of evidence seized in violation of Constitution. Douglas, J., conc. Stewart, J., would reverse on ground Ohio obscenity statute not consistent with rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by Fourteenth Amendment. Harlan, Frankfurter, and Whittaker, JJ., diss.
310. Indictment
311. Composition of grand jury (see also 510)
312. Character of evidence
(On Jencks point, 353 U.S. 357, and Jencks Act, 18 USC 3500, see 315.)
312.24. Re Lt. Michael Collins, Jr. (Pres. Kennedy.) June 1954: Resp., World War II veteran, court-martialed; charges: breaking into house with intent to rape — acquitted; burglary and assault — convicted; 10 yrs. Jan. 1956: Sec. of Army ordered all charges dismissed, all rights restored, Resp. released. 1961: Cong. comm. investigated, concluded Resp. convicted on false charges by fellow officers, passed bill giving Resp. $25,000. reimbursement; Pres. Kennedy signed bill, instituted investigation.
312.25. New York v. Kirkup, Jr. (NY Sup. Ct., App. Div., Bklyn.) Def. charged with heading illegal drug-buying combine; convicted. June 13, 1961: App. Div. reversed, ordered new trial, holding evidence sufficient to warrant conviction, but Def. did not receive fair trial because of prosecution misconduct: trying to get immaterial testimony before jury, turning it over to newspapers when trial ct. ruled it out.
312.26. New York v. Molina del Rio. (NY Ct. of Genl. Sess.) Sept. 20, 1960: fight broke out in restaurant between anti- and pro-Castro forces; sugar bowls, chairs flung about; 2 pro-Castroites stabbed; stray bullet allegedly fired by Def. struck and killed child. Def. indicted for murder of child on theory he had deliberately, with malice aforethought sought to murder anti-Castroite; convicted of second degree. Motion for new trial made, based on recantation of prosecution witness after capture in Havana in unsuccessful Cuban invasion. Issues: denial of interpreter of Spanish-speaking Def's. choice for 11 days after arrest resulting in denial of right to counsel, who spoke only English; Ct's. refusal to grant 6-mth. adjournment due to prejudice in community; Ct's. granting prosecution application for special panel of jurors, deliberate exclusion of persons of same economic strata as Def.; Ct. permitted prosecution witnesses to testify as to their activities in part, then permitted them to claim Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to answer questions on cross-examination; whether "intent" was proved. June 22, 1961: sentencing. Ct's. decision on motions pending.

Samuel A. Neuburger, Andrew R. Tyler, Esqs., 30 Vesey St., NYC.
313. Entrapment
See Slagle, 335.5.
314. Conspiracy

314.5. Cotton v. Super. Ct., Imperial Co. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) Feb. 1961: during organizing drive by Agricultural Workers Organizing Comm., United Packinghouse Workers, 23 farm laborers arrested; charges: criminal trespass, conspiracy to kidnap, trespass and riot. Issues: violation of First Amendment rights by making it illegal for organizers to talk to braceros on ranch owners' property, only place they could be spoken to; probable cause for conspiracy charge. Calif. Sup. Ct. issued alternative writ of prohibition against prosecutions.

Marshall Ross, Charles K. Hackler, Esqs., 510 S. Spring St., Los Angeles; Richard W. Petherbridge, Esq., 117 N. Fifth St., El Centro, Calif.

Amicus appearance by A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., for A.C.L.U. of S. Calif., 323 W. 5th St., Los Angeles.

And see 57.1, VI DOCKET 47.

Law review article:

Herbert Wechsler, Wm. K. Jones, Harold L. Korn, Treatment of inchoate crime in Model Penal Code of Am. Law Inst.: attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, 61 Colum. L. Rev. 571-628.

Case note:

Husband and wife as co-conspirators against U.S.: U.S. v. Dege, (364 U.S. 51), 15 U. Miami L. Rev. 312-15.
315. Right to inspect pre-trial statements of government witnesses
(Including Jencks point, 353 U.S. 357, and Jencks Act, 18 USC 3500.)

Comment:

Grand jury minutes and the rule of secrecy in federal litigation, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 482-502.


312.14a. Palermo v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Fact: IV DOCKET 100-01. Cite: 360 U.S. 343.

Case note:

21 Md. L. Rev. 153-59.
- 115 -

315.2. Clancy v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 88. Cite: 365 U.S. 312.
315.3. Campbell v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 89. Cite: 365 U.S. 85.

Case note:

7 Wayne L. Rev. 487-91.
315.4. U.S. v. Consolidated Laundries Corp. of N.Y. (CA 2.) 2 linen supply assns., 8 member cos., 6 individuals indicted for criminal anti-trust violations. 1958: SD NY convicted after trial without jury; $451,000. fines, 3-6 mths. for individuals. After trial Defs. uncovered 43 unnumbered documents in Gov't. files; DC denied motion for new trial. May 31, 1961: CA 2 reversed, held Gov't. negligent in not making documents available to Defs.
320. Double Jeopardy
Comment:

Former jeopardy, 9 Kan. L. Rev. 438-45.

Comment:

Double jeopardy and the identity of offenses, 21 La. L. Rev. 615-26.

Law review article:

Lawrence Newman, Double jeopardy and the problem of successive prosecutions: suggested solution, 34 S. Cal. L. Rev. 252-67.

321. Federal cases

321.9. Gori v. U.S. (U.S.S.C., #486.) Facts: VI DOCKET 63. June 12, 1961: U.S.S.C. affirmed (5-4), Frankfurter, J.: Where, for reasons deemed compelling by trial judge, ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing trial, mistrial may be declared without Def's. consent, even over his objection, and he may be retried consistently with Fifth Amendment. Douglas, J. (Warren, C.J., Black and Brennan, JJ.) diss.: Once jury has been impanelled and sworn, jeopardy attaches and subsequent prosecution is barred if mistrial is ordered, absent showing of imperious necessity. The discretion is to be exercised only in very extraordinary and striking circumstances. The Double Jeopardy Clause applies a strict standard. The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy. It is designed to help equalize the position of government and the individual, to discourage abusive use of the awesome power of society.

Case note:

36 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 730-37.
321.10. Saldana v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 63, 89. Cite: 365 U.S. 646.

Case note:

Multiple offenses and multiple penalties under fedl. narcotics laws: Yancy v. U.S. (362 U.S. 389), 28 U. Chi. L. Rev. 308-16.
322. State cases
330. Self-incrimination: Criminal Sanctions (see also 270)
Law review article:

Jack Kroner, Self-incrimination: the external reach of the privilege, 60 Colum. L. Rev. 816-38.

331. Congressional Committees

331.10. Presser v. U.S. (U.S.S.C.) Facts: VI DOCKET 25, 89. Cites: 284 F. 2d 233; cert. den. 365 U.S. 816.
332. State Committees
See DeGregory, 272.3.
333. Grand juries and tribunals

333.18. Larasso v. N.Y. State Investigation Comm. (SD NY, 60 Civ. 4229.) Facts: VI DOCKET 26. May 12, 1961: DC dismissed complaint.

Comment:

Privilege against self-incrimination in fedl. tax investigations, 14 U. Fla. L. Rev. 74-84.