In the Matter of Disbarment of John Harvey Crow. isc
| Decision Date | 01 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 594,M,594 |
| Citation | 3 L.Ed.2d 1025,359 U.S. 1007,79 S.Ct. 1152 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Disbarment of John Harvey CROW. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
It is having been reported to the Court that John Harvey Crow, of Urbana, State of Ohio, has been disbarred from the practice of law in all the courts of the State of Ohio by judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Champagne County, State of Ohio, duly entered on the 16th day of August, A.D. 1956, and this Court by order or March 23, 1959, 79 S.Ct. 736, having suspended the said John Harvey Crow from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;
And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and erv ed upon the respondent, who had filed a return thereto; now, upon consideration of the rule to show cause and the return aforesaid;
It is ordered that the said John Harvey Crow be, and he is hereby disbarred, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.
Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
The disposition made of this disbarment proceeding does not conform to our practice. While admission to membership in our Bar is dependent on membership in a Bar of a State or other like political unit (Rule 5), dis- barment there does not automatically result in disbarment here. When a State disbars a lowyer, we suspended him and issue a rule to show cause why he should not be disbarred. He then has an opportunity to make a return, after which (or on expiration of 40 days if no response is made) 'the court will enter an appropriate order.' Rule 8.
If a return is made challenging the Fairness of the state proceedings that resulted in his disbarment there, it is our practice to appoint a committee to make an inquiry into the matter and submit a report and recommendation to us. That was done in Matter of Capshaw. Journal, February 12, 1945; 65 S.Ct. 673. The committee there appointed reported and, acting on that report, we entered an order of disbarment. Journal, May 19, 1947; 67 S.Ct. 1345.
Crow has made a return in this case denying the charges against him, alleging they were 'manufactured.' He challenges the reliability of the witnesses who spoke against him, he insists that the testimony of some witnesses refutes the charges; he maintains that persons with dishonorable motives induced witnesses to testify falsely against him; he alleges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethea v. United Stated
... ... Silbert, U.S. Atty. and John A. Terry, Albert H. Turkus, and Richard L. Cys, Asst. U.S ... As a matter of internal policy, we have adopted the rule that no ... ...
-
U.S. v. Ecker
... ... C., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry and Roger M. Adelman, Asst. U. S. Attys., ... Judge Smith took the matter under advisement, and on 27 December 1974 entered findings ... ...
-
Lee v. Kolb
... ... upon which abstention could be premised as a matter of comity. Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S ... ...
-
Mildner v. Gulotta
...in disbarment proceedings. See In re Capshaw, 65 S. Ct. 673 (1945), and 67 S.Ct. 1345 (1947); In re Crow, 359 U.S. 1007, 1008, 79 S.Ct. 1152, 3 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1959) (Douglas, J., dissenting opn.); Stern & Gressman, supra, Sec. Second, with respect to the criticism that the court provided no ......