Sacher et al. v. United States (343 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 10, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 343 U.S. 1 · 72 S. Ct. 451
- Docket
- No. 201
- Argued
- January 9, 1952
- Decided
- March 10, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1951
- Vote
- 5–3
- Majority author
- Justice Jackson (R.H.)
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote), Justice Reed
- Dissenting
- Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Black (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. After a turbulent nine months of trial, eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted of violating the Smith Act. On receiving the verdict, the trial judge at once filed a certificate under Rule 42 (a), Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., finding petitioners guilty of criminal contempt and imposing various jail terms up to six months. Those sentenced were defense counsel, with the exception of one defendant who had elected to conduct his own case. The Court of Appeals reviewed the judge’s action, both on facts and law, reversed some specifications of contempt, but affirmed the conviction and sentences. Judge Augustus Hand, who favored affirmance on all charges, pronounced petitioners’ conduct concerted and wilfully obstructive and described it as including “persistent obstructive colloquies, objections, arguments, and many groundless charges against the court . ...” Judge Frank, who favored reversal of those specifications which were reversed, declared that the court affirmed the remaining ones “only because of the lawyers’ outrageous conduct — conduct of a kind which no lawyer owes his client, which cannot ever be justified, and which was never employed by those advocates, for minorities or for the unpopular, whose courage has made lawyerdom proud.” Judge Clark, who would have reversed the entire judgment because of the procedure…
Excerpt of a 143,202-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.