Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Case Digest 03.19

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    1. The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951 under the Smith Act for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and to organize the Communist Party with that intent. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case to the lower court. It found that the statute of limitations had run on the "organizing" charge. It also found that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding advocacy of overthrow as an abstract principle were inadequate. 3. The evidence was insufficient to convict five of the petitioners, but sufficient to allow retrial of the others. The determinations in a prior denaturalization case regarding one petitioner were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest 03.19

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    20 views3 pages
    1. The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951 under the Smith Act for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and to organize the Communist Party with that intent. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case to the lower court. It found that the statute of limitations had run on the "organizing" charge. It also found that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding advocacy of overthrow as an abstract principle were inadequate. 3. The evidence was insufficient to convict five of the petitioners, but sufficient to allow retrial of the others. The determinations in a prior denaturalization case regarding one petitioner were

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951 under the Smith Act for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and to organize the Communist Party with that intent. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case to the lower court. It found that the statute of limitations had run on the "organizing" charge. It also found that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding advocacy of overthrow as an abstract principle were inadequate. 3. The evidence was insufficient to convict five of the petitioners, but sufficient to allow retrial of the others. The determinations in a prior denaturalization case regarding one petitioner were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views3 pages

    Case Digest 03.19

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    1. The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951 under the Smith Act for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and to organize the Communist Party with that intent. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case to the lower court. It found that the statute of limitations had run on the "organizing" charge. It also found that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding advocacy of overthrow as an abstract principle were inadequate. 3. The evidence was insufficient to convict five of the petitioners, but sufficient to allow retrial of the others. The determinations in a prior denaturalization case regarding one petitioner were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    B.

    Freedom of association, assembly and form unions


    142
    Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 190582, April 7, 2010

    154
    Yates vs. U.S., 354 US 298.
    FACTS:
    The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951
    in a Federal District Court under § 3 of the Smith Act and 18 U.S.C. § 371 for
    conspiring:
    (1) to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the
    United States by force and violence, and
    (2) to organize, as the Communist Party of the United States, a society of persons who
    so advocate and teach, all with the intent of causing the overthrow of the Government
    by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.

    The indictment charged that the conspiracy originated in 1940 and continued down to
    the date of the indictment, and that, in carrying it out, petitioners and their
    coconspirators would:
    (a) become members and officers of the Communist Party, with knowledge of its
    unlawful purposes, and assume leadership in carrying out its policies and activities,
    (b) cause to be organized units of the Party in California and elsewhere,
    (c) write and publish articles on such advocacy and teaching,
    (d) conduct schools for the indoctrination of Party members in such advocacy and
    teaching, and
    (e) recruit new Party members, particularly from among persons employed in the key
    industries of the Nation.

    It also alleged 23 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Petitioners were convicted
    after a jury trial, and their convictions were sustained by the Court of Appeals.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Yates, et.al., act of conspiring to organize a Communist Party violated the Smith
    Act (Smith Act, formally Alien Registration Act of 1940, U.S. federal law passed in 1940 that
    made it a criminal offense to advocate the violent overthrow of the government or to organize or
    be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy.)
    RATIO:

    The convictions are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with
    directions to enter judgments of acquittal as to five of the petitioners and to grant a new
    trial as to the others.

    1. Since the Communist Party came into being in 1945, and the indictment was not
    returned until 1951, the three-year statute of limitations had run on the "organizing"
    charge, and required the withdrawal of that part of the indictment from the jury's
    consideration.

    (a) Applying the rule that criminal statutes are to be construed strictly, the word
    "organize," as used in the Smith Act, is construed as referring only to acts entering into
    the creation of a new organization, and not to acts thereafter performed in carrying on
    its activities, even though the latter may loosely be termed "organizational."

    (b) The trial court's mistaken construction of the word "organize" was not harmless
    error; the circumstances are such as to call for application of the rule which requires a
    verdict to be set aside where it is supportable on one ground, but not another, and it is
    impossible to tell which ground the jury selected.

    2. The Smith Act does not prohibit advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of the
    Government as an abstract principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that
    end; the trial court's charge to the jury furnished wholly inadequate guidance on this
    central point in the case, and the conviction cannot be allowed to stand. Dennis v.
    United States, 341 U. S. 494, distinguished.

    3. The evidence against five of the petitioners is so clearly insufficient that their acquittal
    should be ordered, but that as to the others is such as not to justify closing the way to
    their retrial.

    4. Determinations favorable to petitioner Schneiderman made by this Court


    in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, a denaturalization proceeding in
    which he was the prevailing party, are not conclusive in this proceeding under the
    doctrine of collateral estoppel, and he is not entitled to a judgment of acquittal on that
    ground. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683.

    The decision was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court.

    C. Freedom of religion; free exercise and non-establishment


    166
    Request of Muslim Employee in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office Hours) A.M.
    No. 02-2-10-SC, 14 December 2005.
    178
    Van Orden vs. Perry, 545 US 677

    D. Freedom to choose where to live and travel


    190
    Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap vs. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, 22 July 2014.

    You might also like