Rosenberg v. Denno 1953
| Decision Date | 15 June 1953 |
| Citation | 97 L.Ed. 1607,73 S.Ct. 1152,346 U.S. 271 |
| Parties | Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg, petitioners, v. Wilford L. DENNO, Warden of Sing Sing Prison. No. ____. Special Term 1953 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The disposition of an application to this Court for habeas corpus is so rarely to be made by this Court directly that Congress has given the Court authority to transfer such an application to an appropriate district court. 28 U.S.C., § 2241, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241. I do not favor such a disposition of this application because the substance of the allegations now made has already been considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York and on review by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Neither can I join the Court in denying the application without more. I would set the application down for hearing before the full Court tomorrow forenoon. Oral argument frequently has a force beyond what the written word conveys.
The Court met in Special Term pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice said:
'The Court is now convened in Special Term to consider an application by the Attorney General (1) to review the stay of execution of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, granted by Mr. Justice Douglas on June 17, 1953, or (2) for reconsideration and reaffirmance of this Court's order of June 15, 1953, in No. 1, Misc., Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, petitioners, v. Wilford L. Denno, Warden of Sing Sing Prison, June 1953 Special Term, denying a stay.
'The Special Term convenes with the approval of all the Associate Justices except Mr. Justice Black, who objects.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. Graham, No. 2005-SC-1009-MR.
......"But history also has its claims." Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 310, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 1171, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., ......
-
Gautha v. California Crampton v. Ohio
......See Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949—1953, Cmd. 8932, 27—29 (1953); Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 753, 68 S.Ct. 880, 886, 92 L.Ed. ...In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, we held that whether on controverted facts a ... to counteract inevitable * * * frailties is the mark of a civilized legal mechanism.' Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 310, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 1171, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., ......
-
State v. Cissell
...... Cf. Rosenberg v. United States, supra, [346 U.S. 273] at 294 [73 S.Ct. 1152, 1163, 97 L.Ed. 1607] (Clark, J., ... may proceed under any or all such provisions." See Wisconsin Legislative Council, 1953 Report, vol. 5, sec. 339.65. . Several commentators suggest that overlapping statutes are the ......
-
Wilderness Society v. Morton
......— Bay Area v. C.A.B., 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 449, 450 (1953). We should be particularly mindful of this maxim in cases such as these where there is specific ... repugnancy" between the two or where the intention to repeal is "clear and manifest." Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 295, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Mr. Justice Clark, ......
-
A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction
...Occasional Pamphlet No. 9, at 22-23 (1967)). 58. C. Hughes, The Supreme Court of the United States 62-63 (1928). 59. Rosenburg v. Denno, 346 U.S. 271, 272 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., 60. Harlan, What Part Does the Oral Argument Play in the Conduct of an Appeal?, 41 Cornell L.Q. 6, 11 (1955). 6......