Chase v. Robson, No. 18424

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation435 F.2d 1059
PartiesFrederick Joseph CHASE et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Edwin A. ROBSON, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Joseph CHASE et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date01 May 1970
Docket Number18417.,No. 18424

435 F.2d 1059 (1970)

Frederick Joseph CHASE et al., Petitioners,
v.
Honorable Edwin A. ROBSON, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Frederick Joseph CHASE et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 18424, 18417.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 1, 1970.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition May 1, 1970.


Patrick J. Hughes, Jr., William C. Cunningham, Chicago, Ill., Anthony P. Locricchio, Clair Shores, Mich., for Chase et al.

Thomas A. Foran, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for Judge Robson.

Marc R. Kadish, Rene C. Hanover, Frank A. Anglin, Jr., Chicago, Ill., amici curiae.

Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and KILEY and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition in No. 18417 May 1, 1970.

435 F.2d 1060

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The above matter comes before this court on a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, or in the alternative, as an appeal from an order below, 309 F.Supp. 430. The petitioners, Frederick Joseph Chase, et al., are the defendants in a criminal case No. 69 CR 364 pending before the respondent, United States District Judge Edwin A. Robson, and scheduled to begin trial on May 4, 1970. The petitioners are charged in a four-count indictment with injury and depredation of files, records and documents located at a Chicago selective service area headquarters; removal, mutilation and destruction of selective service registration cards; interference with the administration of the Selective Service Act by removal and destruction of records; and conspiracy to injure and commit depredations against government property.

The above matter arises from a sua sponte order issued by the Honorable Edwin A. Robson at the time of the pretrial motions in the case of United States of America v. Frederick Joseph Chase et al. The sua sponte order in pertinent part provides:

"It is further ordered that counsel for both the Government and the defendants, as well as each and every defendant herein, make or issue no statements, written or oral, either at a public meeting or occasion, or for public reporting or dissemination in any fashion, regarding the jury or jurors in this case, prospective or selected, the merits of the case, the evidence, actual or anticipated, the witnesses, or the rulings of the court. This order shall remain in force during the pendency of this action in this court. No person covered by this order shall avoid its proscriptions by actions which indirectly, but deliberately, cause a violation of this order. Violation of this order subjects the transgressor to appropriate sanctions by the court." /S/ Edwin A. Robson, February 24, 1970.

The petitioners challenge this order as unconstitutionally overbroad and violative of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech.

From the full text of Judge Robson's order it appears that the order is based on the following:

(1) "Some of the newspaper articles appended to the defendants\' brief in support of the motion for a continuance indicate that the defendants sought publicity by such activities as contacting the press and issuing statements and press releases. The court has the affirmative duty to take preventive measures in order to avert prejudicial pre-trial publicity."
(2) "Public utterances by parties or counsel while a criminal matter is pending are not compatible with the concept of a fair trial since such conduct creates a reasonable likelihood of prejudicial outside influence upon the trial. It is fundamental to our system of constitutional democracy that issues of law and fact in a criminal proceeding be resolved in the courts, and not in the news media nor in the streets. The court therefore may restrict extra-judicial statements concerning a pending
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 practice notes
  • Younger v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1973
    ...are required (not required, Hamilton v. Municipal Court, 270 Cal.App.2d 797, 76 Cal.Rptr. 168; perhaps required, Chase v. Robson, 7 Cir., 435 F.2d 1059). Accordingly, in the event such findings are appropriate, the court makes the specific findings implicit in the subject order referred to ......
  • Hirschkop v. Snead, No. 76-2016
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1979
    ...L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 729, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (Frankfurter, J. concurring); Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059, 1060 (7th Cir. 11 See Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 730, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (Frankfurter, J. concurring). 12 In a jurisdict......
  • U.S. v. Lang, No. 02-4075.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 21, 2004
    ...cert. denied 397 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 908, 25 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970); United States v. Chase, 309 F.Supp. 430 (N.D.Ill.1970), mandamus granted 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir.1970). It has also been used to prosecute the removal of Government records. See United States v. Coplon, 88 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y.19......
  • Burnett v. Tolson, No. 72-1545.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 21, 1973
    ...General, 307 F.Supp. 849 (D.S.C.1969), aff'd, 429 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. 1970) (mandamus jurisdiction apparently assumed); Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1970) (mandamus available against a district judge to prevent prior restraint of first amendment freedom of speech); Yahr v. Resor,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
63 cases
  • Younger v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1973
    ...are required (not required, Hamilton v. Municipal Court, 270 Cal.App.2d 797, 76 Cal.Rptr. 168; perhaps required, Chase v. Robson, 7 Cir., 435 F.2d 1059). Accordingly, in the event such findings are appropriate, the court makes the specific findings implicit in the subject order referred to ......
  • Hirschkop v. Snead, No. 76-2016
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1979
    ...L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 729, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (Frankfurter, J. concurring); Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059, 1060 (7th Cir. 11 See Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 730, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (Frankfurter, J. concurring). 12 In a jurisdict......
  • U.S. v. Lang, No. 02-4075.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 21, 2004
    ...cert. denied 397 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 908, 25 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970); United States v. Chase, 309 F.Supp. 430 (N.D.Ill.1970), mandamus granted 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir.1970). It has also been used to prosecute the removal of Government records. See United States v. Coplon, 88 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y.19......
  • Burnett v. Tolson, No. 72-1545.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 21, 1973
    ...General, 307 F.Supp. 849 (D.S.C.1969), aff'd, 429 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. 1970) (mandamus jurisdiction apparently assumed); Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1970) (mandamus available against a district judge to prevent prior restraint of first amendment freedom of speech); Yahr v. Resor,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT