Rosenberg v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 111,111 |
| Citation | 73 S.Ct. 134,344 U.S. 889,97 L.Ed. 687 |
| Parties | Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioners are under death sentence, and it is not unreasonable to feel that before life is taken review should be open in the highest court of the society which has condemned them. Such right of review was the law of the land for twenty years. By § 6 of the Act of February 6, 1889, 25 Stat. 655, 656, convictions in capital cases arising under federal statutes were appealable here. But in 1911 Congress abolished the appeal as of right, and since then death sentences have come here only under the same conditions that apply to any criminal conviction in a federal court. (§§ 128, 238, 240 and 241 of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1087, 1133, 1157.)1
The Courts of Appeals are charged by Congress with the duty of reviewing all criminal convictions. These are courts of great authority and corresponding responsibility. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was deeply conscious of its responsibility in this case. Speaking through Judge Frank it said: "Since two of the defendants must be put to death if the judgments stand, it goes without saying that we have scrutinized the record with extraordinary care to see whether it contains any of the errors asserted on this appeal." 195 F.2d 583, 590.
After further consideration, the Court has adhered to its denial of this petition for certiorari. Misconception regarding the meaning of such a denial persists despite repeated attempts at explanation. It means, and all that it means is, that there were not four members of the Court to whom the grounds on which the decision of the Court of Appeals was challenged seemed sufficiently important when judged by the standards governing the issue of the discretionary writ of certiorari. It also deserves to be repeated that the effective administration of justice precludes this Court from giving reasons, however briefly, for its denial of a petition for certiorari. I have heretofore explained the reasons that for me also militate against noting individual votes when a petition for certiorari is denied. See Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors, 343 U.S. 982, 72 S.Ct. 1018.
Numerous grounds were urged in support of this petition for certiorari; the petition for rehearing raised five additional questions. So far as these questions come within the power of this Court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sobell
... ... Before SWAN, FRIENDLY and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges ... FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge ... On March 29, 1951, a jury in the Southern District of New York found Morton Sobell guilty, along with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, under a single count indictment charging a conspiracy to violate 50 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 32(a), which made it a crime to "communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government * * * information relating to the national defense", or to aid or induce another to do so. Sobell was sentenced to ... ...
-
United States v. Drummond
... ... United States, 325 U.S. 1, 45, 65 S.Ct. 918, 940, 89 L.Ed. 1441 (1945). But it is also settled that an offense must incorporate all the elements of treason in order for the two-witness rule to apply. United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583, 610-611 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 687 (1952). The Treason Clause requires that an accused act with intent to aid our enemies. Cramer v. United States, supra. On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 794 requires only that an accused transmit information ... ...
-
Dick v. New York Life Insurance Co
...Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors, 343 U.S. 982, 72 S.Ct. 1018, 96 L.Ed. 1372; Rosenberg v. United States, 344 U.S. 889, 73 S.Ct. 134, 97 L.Ed. 687. 2. Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826 (commonly known as the Evarts or Circuit Courts of Appeals Act). 3. H.R.Rep.......
-
Al Walker, Inc. v. Borough of Stanhope
... ... But compare the United States Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal in Doremus v. Board of Education of Borough of ... ...