Rosenberg v. United States 1953
Citation | 73 S.Ct. 1178,346 U.S. 324,97 L.Ed. 1634 |
Parties | Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg v. UNITED STATES of America. No, ____. Special Term 1953. Supreme Court of the United States |
Decision Date | 19 June 1953 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This case is here on a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed an appeal as premature. Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., provides that 'An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from * * *.'
On March 10, 1952, petitioner was sentenced to six months in jail after a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating § 65—5 81 of the Alaska Compiled Laws Ann. 1949. On March 11, 1952, petitioner filed his notice of appeal. The judgment, however, was not entered until March 14, 1952. Since no notice of appeal was filed after that time, the appeal was dismissed as premature, Judge Pope dissenting.
The notice of appeal filed on March 11 was, however, still on file on March 14 and gave full notice after that date, as well as before, of the sentence and judgment which petitioner challenged. We think the irregularity is governed by Rule 52(a) which reads 'Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.'
Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the judgment below, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US ex rel. Farmer v. Kaufman
...750 F. Supp. 106. The UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Fyke FARMER, Plaintiff,. v. Irving R. KAUFMAN, ... relating to the famous trial and sentencing of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Currently before the Court is defendant Judge Kaufman's motion to dismiss ... for executive clemency, the Rosenbergs were executed on June 19, 1953. Plaintiff Fyke Farmer filed this lawsuit nearly forty ......
-
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin
...... dismissed his complaint 990 P.2d 29 because, in his view, it states a valid claim for violation of his due process rights. The Due Process use of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government actions that ...Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 12, 70 S.Ct. 457, 94 L.Ed. 604 (1950) ; Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 322, 73 S.Ct. 1178, 97 L.Ed. 1633 (1953) ......
-
Meredith v. Fair
......No. 19475. United" States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. July 27, 1962.306 F.2d 375 \xC2"...Rosenberg v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 273, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607, ......
-
Crocker v. United States
......Rosenburg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607, rec. den., 346 U.S. 324, 73 S.Ct. 1178, 97 L.Ed. 1634 (1953); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 89 S.Ct. 557, 21 L.Ed.2d 616 (1969). . Applying these principles to Section 7422(e), the court ......