Goldman v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 702,702 |
| Citation | 245 U.S. 474,38 S.Ct. 166,62 L.Ed. 410 |
| Parties | GOLDMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Because of the constitutional questions involved the plaintiffs in error prosecute this direct writ of error to reverse a criminal conviction and resulting sentence imposed upon them. The indictment upon which the conviction was had charged them with having, in violation of sections 37 and 332 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 10201, 10506), unlawfully conspired together and with others unknown to induce persons who by the Selective Draft Law of May 18, 1917, (Public No. 12, 65th Congress, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76) were under the duty to register, to disobey the law by failing to register. Five specified overt acts were in the indictment charged to have been committed in furtherance of the alleged illegal conspiracy.
Seven grounds of error were assigned at the time of the allowance of the writ: (1) The refusal of the court at the request of the defendants to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the formation of a conspiracy to induce persons not to register as they were required under the law to do and the performance of overt acts to carry out the conspiracy constituted no offense. (2) The action of the court in refusing to grant a motion in arrest of judgment on the same ground. (3) The refusal to set aside the verdict because the facts proved did not constitute an offense against the United States. (4) The denial of a motion to dismiss the prosecution at the request of the defendants on the ground that the Selective Draft Law upon which the alleged duty to register depended was repugnant to the Consitution and void, there being numerous specifications on this subject involving a challenge of all power in Congress to have enacted the law and moreover upon the assumption of some power an assertion of the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution resulting from various provisions which the act contained. (5) The de- nial by the court of a motion made at the close of the case to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it stated no offense as previously insisted and upon the further ground that in any event there was no proof of the alleged conspiracy or the averred overt acts or of any act adequate to show guilt. (6 and 7) The refusal of a motion to set aside the verdict and in arrest of judgment because the verdict was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence upon grounds which had been previously urged and overruled.
Putting aside the multiplication which results from urging the same ground several times because when once made it was adhered to and reiterated at different stages of the trial, it is clear that the assignments embrace only three propositions: (1) The failure to dismiss th prosecution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. United States
... ... United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 144 (35 ... Sup.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504, L.R.A. 1915D, 281); Joplin ... Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 531, 535, ... 536 (35 Sup.Ct. 291, 59 L.Ed. 705).' ... See, ... also, Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477, ... 38 Sup.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410; Louie v. United ... States, 218 F. 36, 39, 134 C.C.A. 58 (C.C.A. 9) ... Certainly ... there was no inconsistency in alleging the offenses severally ... charged in the two indictments. Can it be, then, that ... ...
-
Dennis v. United States
...But the force of even this expression is considerably weakened by the reference at the end of the opinion to Goldman v. United States, 1918, 245 U.S. 474, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410, a prosecution under the same statute. Said Justice Holmes, 'Indeed (Goldman) might be said to dispose of the......
-
United States v. Schneiderman
...71 S.Ct. 857; Frohwerk v. United States, supra, 249 U.S. at pages 209-210, 39 S.Ct. 249, 63 L.Ed. 561; Goldman v. United States, 1918, 245 U.S. 474, 477, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410. True, the conspiracy is to violate a statute which places some restraint upon freedom of expression. But as I......
-
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
...is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concluden......
-
"THIS WEARISOME ANALYSIS": THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST FROM SCHENCK TO BRANDENBURG.
...are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime." Id. (citing Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474,477 (53.) Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 206 (1919). (54.) Id. (55.) Id. at 205-06. Schenck had been sentenced to ten years on thr......