Palko v. Connecticut
- Opinion, Cardozo
1. Under a state statute allowing appeal by the State in criminal cases, when permitted by the trial judge, for correction of errors of law, a sentence of life imprisonment, on a conviction of murder in the second degree, was reversed. Upon retrial, the accused was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. Held consistent with due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 322.
2. Assuming that the prohibition of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment applies to jeopardy in the same case if the new trial be at the instance of the Government, and not upon defendant's motion, it does not follow that a like prohibition is applicable against state action by force of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 322 et seq.[p320]
3. The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee against state action all that would be a violation of the original bill of rights (Amendments I to VIII) if done by the Federal Government. P. 323.
4. The process of absorption whereby some of the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the federal bill of rights have been brought within the Fourteenth Amendment has had its source in the belief that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. P. 326.
5. It is not necessary to the decision in this case to consider what the answer would have to be if the State were permitted, after a trial free from error, to try the accused over again or to bring another case against him. P. 328.
6. The conviction of the defendant upon the retrial ordered upon the appeal by the State in this case was not in derogation of any privileges or immunities that belonged to him as a citizen of the United States. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581. P. 329.
APPEAL from a judgment sustaining a sentence of death upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The defendant had previously been convicted upon the same indictment of murder in the second degree, whereupon the State appealed and a new trial was ordered.
CARDOZO, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.
A statute of Connecticut permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by the state is challenged by appellant as an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Whether the challenge should be upheld is now to be determined.
Appellant was indicted in Fairfield County, Connecticut, for the crime of murder in the first degree. A jury [p321] found him guilty of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to confinement in the state prison for life. Thereafter, the State of Connecticut, with the permission of the judge presiding at the trial, gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors. This it did pursuant to an act adopted in 1886 which is printed in the margin. [n1] Public Acts, 1886, p. 560; now § 6494 of the General Statutes. Upon such appeal, the Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. State v. Palko, 121 Conn. 669, 186 Atl. 657. It found that there had been error of law to the prejudice of the state (1) in excluding testimony as to a confession by defendant; (2) in excluding testimony upon cross-examination of defendant to impeach his credibility, and (3) in the instructions to the jury as to the difference between first and second degree murder.
Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Errors, defendant was brought to trial again. Before a jury was impaneled and also at later stages of the case, he made the objection that the effect of the new trial was to place him twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and, in so doing, to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Upon the overruling of the objection, the trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the court sentenced the defendant to the punishment of [p322] death. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the judgment of conviction, 122 Conn. 529, 191 Atl. 320, adhering to a decision announced in 1894, State v. Lee, 65 Conn. 265, 30 Atl. 1110, which upheld the challenged statute. Cf. State v. Muolo, 118 Conn. 373, 172 Atl. 875. The case is here upon appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 344.
1. The execution of the sentence will not deprive appellant of his life without the process of law assured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
The argument for appellant is that whatever is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment is forbidden by the Fourteenth also. The Fifth Amendment, which is not directed to the states, but solely to the federal government, creates immunity from double jeopardy. No person shall be "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The Fourteenth Amendment ordains, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." To retry a defendant, though under one indictment and only one, subjects him, it is said, to double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment if the prosecution is one on behalf of the United States. From this the consequence is said to follow that there is a denial of life or liberty without due process of law, if the prosecution is one on behalf of the People of a State. Thirty-five years ago, a like argument was made to this court in Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 85, and was passed without consideration of its merits as unnecessary to a decision. The question is now here.
We do not find it profitable to mark the precise limits of the prohibition of double jeopardy in federal prosecutions. The subject was much considered in Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, decided in 1904 by a closely divided court. The view was there expressed for a majority of the court that the prohibition was not confined [p323] to jeopardy in a new and independent case. It forbade jeopardy in the same case if the new trial was at the instance of the government, and not upon defendant's motion. Cf. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521. All this may be assumed for the purpose of the case at hand, though the dissenting opinions ( 195 U.S. 100, 134, 137) show how much was to be said in favor of a different ruling. Right-minded men, as we learn from those opinions, could reasonably, even if mistakenly, believe that a second trial was lawful in prosecutions subject to the Fifth Amendment if it was all in the same case. Even more plainly, right-minded men could reasonably believe that, in espousing that conclusion, they were not favoring a practice repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Is double jeopardy in such circumstances, if double jeopardy it must be called, a denial of due process forbidden to the states? The tyranny of labels, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 114, must not lead us to leap to a conclusion that a word which in one set of facts may stand for oppression or enormity is of like effect in every other.
We have said that, in appellant's view, the Fourteenth Amendment is to be taken as embodying the prohibitions of the Fifth. His thesis is even broader. Whatever would be a violation of the original bill of rights (Amendments I to VIII) if done by the federal government is now equally unlawful by force of the Fourteenth Amendment if done by a state. There is no such general rule.
The Fifth Amendment provides, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This court has held that, in prosecutions by a state, presentment or indictment by a grand jury may give way to informations at the instance of a public officer. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516; Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86. The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be [p324] compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This court has said that, in prosecutions by a state, the exemption will fail if the state elects to end it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 106, 111, 112. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 105; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 285. The Sixth Amendment calls for a jury trial in criminal cases, and the Seventh for a jury trial in civil cases at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581; New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 208; Wagner Electric Mfg. Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U.S. 226, 232. As to the Fourth Amendment, one should refer to Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, and, as to other provisions of the Sixth, to West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258.
On the other hand, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a state to abridge by its statutes the freedom of speech which the First Amendment safeguards against encroachment by the Congress, De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259; or the like freedom of the press, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233; Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 707; or the free exercise of religion, Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510; or the right of peaceable assembly, without which speech would be unduly trammeled, De Jonge v. Oregon, supra; Herndon v. Lowry, supra; or the right of one accused of crime to the benefit of counsel, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45. In these and other situations, immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific [p325] pledges of particular amendments [n2] have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states.
The line of division may seem to be wavering and broken if there is a hasty catalogue of the cases on the one side and the other. Reflection and analysis will induce a different view. There emerges the perception of a rationalizing principle which gives to discrete instances a proper order and coherence. The right to trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may have value and importance. Even so, they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. To abolish them is not to violate a "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 105; Brown v. Mississippi, supra, p. 285; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316. Few would be so narrow or provincial as to maintain that a fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible without them. What is true of jury trials and indictments is true also, as the cases show, of the immunity from compulsory self-incrimination. Twining v. New Jersey, supra. This too might be lost, and justice still be done. Indeed, today, as in the past, there are students of our penal system who look upon the immunity as a mischief, rather than a benefit, and who [p326] would limit its scope, or destroy it altogether. [n3] No doubt there would remain the need to give protection against torture, physical or mental. Brown v. Mississippi, supra. Justice, however, would not perish if the accused were subject to a duty to respond to orderly inquiry. The exclusion of these immunities and privileges from the privileges and immunities protected against the action of the states has not been arbitrary or casual. It has been dictated by a study and appreciation of the meaning, the essential implications, of liberty itself.
We reach a different plane of social and moral values when we pass to the privileges and immunities that have been taken over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption. These, in their origin, were effective against the federal government alone. If the Fourteenth Amendment has absorbed them, the process of absorption has had its source in the belief that neither liberty nor Justice would exist if they were sacrificed. Twining v. New Jersey, supra, p. 99. [n4] This is true, for illustration, of freedom of thought, and speech. [p327] Of that freedom one may say that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations, a pervasive recognition of that truth can be traced in our history, political and legal. So it has come about that the domain of liberty, withdrawn by the Fourteenth Amendment from encroachment by the states, has been enlarged by latter-day judgments to include liberty of the mind as well as liberty of action. [n5] The extension became, indeed, a logical imperative when once it was recognized, as long ago it was, that liberty is something more than exemption from physical restraint, and that, even in the field of substantive rights and duties, the legislative judgment, if oppressive and arbitrary, may be overridden by the courts. Cf. Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra. Fundamental too in the concept of due process, and so in that of liberty, is the thought that condemnation shall be rendered only after trial. Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421. The hearing, moreover, must be a real one, not a sham or a pretense. Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103. For that reason, ignorant defendants in a capital case were held to have been condemned unlawfully when in truth, though not in form, they were refused the aid of counsel. Powell v. Alabama, supra, pp. 67, 68. The decision did not turn upon the fact that the benefit of counsel would have been guaranteed to the defendants by the provisions of the Sixth Amendment if they had been prosecuted in a federal court. The decision turned upon the fact that, in the particular situation laid before us in the evidence, the benefit of counsel was essential to the substance of a hearing. [p328]
Our survey of the cases serves, we think, to justify the statement that the dividing line between them, if not unfaltering throughout its course, has been true for the most part to a unifying principle. On which side of the line the case made out by the appellant has appropriate location must be the next inquiry, and the final one. Is that kind of double jeopardy to which the statute has subjected him a hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it? Does it violate those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions"? Hebert v. Louisiana, supra. The answer surely must be "no." What the answer would have to be if the state were permitted after a trial free from error to try the accused over again or to bring another case against him, we have no occasion to consider. We deal with the statute before us, and no other. The state is not attempting to wear the accused out by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It asks no more than this, that the case against him shall go on until there shall be a trial free from the corrosion of substantial legal error. State v. Felch, 92 Vt. 477, 105 Atl. 23; State v. Lee, supra. This is not cruelty at all, nor even vexation in any immoderate degree. If the trial had been infected with error adverse to the accused, there might have been review at his instance, and as often as necessary to purge the vicious taint. A reciprocal privilege, subject at all times to the discretion of the presiding judge, State v. Carabetta, 106 Conn. 114, 127 Atl. 394, has now been granted to the state. There is here no seismic innovation. The edifice of justice stands, its symmetry, to many, greater than before.
2. The conviction of appellant is not in derogation of any privileges or immunities that belong to him as a citizen of the United States. [p329]
There is argument in his behalf that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the due process clause has been flouted by the judgment.
Maxwell v. Dow, supra, p. 584, gives all the answer that is necessary.
The judgment is
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER dissents.
Sec. 6494. Appeals by the state in criminal cases. Appeals from the rulings and decisions of the superior court or of any criminal court of common pleas, upon all questions of law arising on the trial of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the presiding judge, to the supreme court of errors, in the same manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused.
A statute of Vermont (G.L. 2598) was given the same effect and upheld as constitutional in State v. Felch, 92 Vt. 477, 105 Atl. 23.
Other statutes, conferring a right of appeal more or less limited in scope, are collected in the American Law Institute Code of Criminal Procedure, June 15, 1930, p. 1203.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
3.See, e.g., Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Book IX, Pt. 4, c. III; Glueck, Crime and Justice, p. 94; cf. Wigmore, Evidence, vol. 4, § 2251.
Compulsory self-incrimination is part of the established procedure in the law of Continental Europe. Wigmore, supra, p. 824; Garner Criminal Procedure in France, 25 Yale L.J. 255, 260; Sherman, Roman Law in the Modern World, vol. 2, pp. 493, 494; Stumberg, Guide to the Law and Legal Literature of France, p. 184. Double jeopardy too is not everywhere forbidden. Radin, Anglo American Legal History, p. 228.
. . . it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.
5. The cases are brought together in Warren, The New Liberty under the 14th Amendment, 39 Harv.L.Rev. 431.
- Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Alberto Antonio LEON et al.
- Ira Eugene BORCHARDT v. UNITED STATES
- Richard THORNBURGH, et al., Appellants v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS et al.
- Michael J. BOWERS, Attorney General of Georgia, Petitioner v. Michael HARDWICK, and John and Mary Doe.
- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE, INC.
- Louis J. TRUESDALE, Jr. v. James AIKEN, Warden, et al.
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Anthony SALERNO and Vincent Cafaro.
- William Wayne THOMPSON, Petitioner v. OKLAHOMA.
- Frank Dean TEAGUE, Petitioner v. Michael LANE, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
- Kevin N. STANFORD, Petitioner v. KENTUCKY. Heath A. WILKINS, Petitioner v. MISSOURI.
- Horace BUTLER, Petitioner v. Kenneth D. McKELLAR, Warden, et al.
- Nancy Beth CRUZAN, by her Parents and Co-Guardians, Lester L. CRUZAN, et ux., Petitioners v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.
- PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Cleopatra HASLIP et al.
- Terry FOUCHA, Petitioner v. LOUISIANA.
- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert P. CASEY, et al., etc. Robert P. CASEY, et al., etc., Petitioners, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al.
- Gary GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
- Leonel Torres HERRERA, Petitioner v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
- CARLISLE v. UNITED STATES Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- MONTANA v. EGELHOFF Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana.
- Joseph Roger O'DELL, III, Petitioner, v. J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden, et al.
- WASHINGTON, et al., Petitioners, v. Harold GLUCKSBERG et al.
- COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Petitioners, v. Teri LEWIS and Thomas Lewis, personal representative of the Estate of Philip Lewis, Deceased.
- COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., Petitioners, v. BUSINESS EXECUTIVES' MOVE FOR VIETNAM PEACE et al. POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, CAPITAL AREA, INC., Petitioner, v. BUSINESS EXECUTIVES' MOVE FOR VIETNAM PEACE. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Petitioner, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
- PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al., Petitioners, v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, et al.
- Elmer GERTZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
- OLD DOMINION BRANCH NO. 496, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v. Henry M. AUSTIN et al.
- James L. BUCKLEY et al., Appellants, v. Francis R. VALEO, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. (two cases).
- Edgar PAUL, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Edward Charles DAVIS, III.
- W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al., Petitioners, v. J. W. GAMBLE.
- Robert P. WHALEN, as Commissioner of Health of New York, Appellant, v. Richard ROE, an infant by Robert Roe, his parent, et al.
- Inez MOORE, Appellant, v. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO.
- Phillip Jerome LEE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
- T. L. BAKER, Petitioner, v. Linnie Carl McCOLLAN.
- State of ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. William Dale MANYPENNY.
- Michael J. REGAN, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
- HUGHES et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA.
- WOLF v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO (two cases).
- Dennis Councle McGAUTHA, Petitioner, v. State of CALIFORNIA. James Edward CRAMPTON, Petitioner, v. State of OHIO.
- LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN, GA.
- JOHNSON v. ZERBST, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga.
- HAGUE, Mayor, et al., v. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION et al.
- CHAMBERS et al. v. STATE OF FLORIDA.
- THORNHILL v. STATE OF ALABAMA.
- BRIDGES v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TIMES-MIRROR CO. et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
- BETTS v. BRADY, Warden.
- ADAMS, Warden of City Prison of Manhattan, et al. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. McCANN.
- UNITED STATES ex rel. MARCUS v. HESS et al.
- ROCHE, United States District Judge, et al. v. EVAPORATED MILK ASS'N et al.
- WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. BARNETTE et al.
- BEN CHAVEZ, PETITIONER v. OLIVERIO MARTINEZ
- James MONROE et al., Petitioners, v. Frank PAPE et al.
- Edward M. FAY, Warden, et al., Petitioners, v. Charles NOIA.
- Clarence Earl GIDEON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections.
- George D. KER et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- Gladys BODDIE et al., Appellants, v. State of CONNECTICUT et al.
- Clarence WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Joseph ELKANICH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
- Fred T. MACKEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
- UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Appellant, v. COUNCIL OF GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS et al.
- Jim ROSE, Warden, Petitioner v. Noah Harrison LUNDY.
- Bob Granville POINTER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
- Eddie Dean GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- Estelle T. GRISWOLD et al. Appellants, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
- Dan TEHAN, Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. Edgar I. SHOTT, Jr.
- Annie E. HARPER et al., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. Evelyn BUTTS, Appellant, v. Albertis HARRISON, Governor, et al.
- Ruth Elizabeth CHAPMAN and Thomas LeRoy Teale, Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., Petitioner, v. Wallace BUTTS. The ASSOCIATED PRESS, Petitioner, v. Edwin A. WALKER.
- Jackie WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
- Vincent CIUCCI, Sr., Petitioner, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- William HOAG, Petitioner, v. The STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
- Everett D. GREEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- Paul H. BREITHAUPT, Petitioner, v. Morris ABRAM, Warden.
- Judson GRIFFIN and James Crenshaw, Petitioners, v. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- Nina KINSELLA, Warden of the Federal Reformatory for Women, Alderson, West Virginia, Petitioner, v. Walter KRUEGER.
- BUTE v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- FAY v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK. BOVE v. SAME.
- FOSTER et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- PRINCE v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
- State of NORTH CAROLINA et al., Petitioners, v. Clifton A. PEARCE. Curtis M. SIMPSON, Warden, Petitioner, v. William S. RICE.
- John Dalmer BENTON, Petitioner, v. State of MARYLAND.
- NotFound v. NotFound
- Joseph WALLER, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of FLORIDA.
- Earl PRICE, Petitioner, v. State of GEORGIA.
- Robert BALDWIN, Appellant, v. State of NEW YORK. Johnny WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. State of FLORIDA.
- Milton KNAPP, Petitioner, v. Mitchell D. SCHWEITZER, Judge of the Court of General Sessions, and Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney of the County of New York.
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, ex rel. John PATTERSON, Attorney General.
- McKinley E. GORE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- Leon F. CARROLL and Daniel J. Stewart, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- Samuel ROTH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. David S. ALBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- Paul M. SWEEZY, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE by Louis C. WYMAN, Attorney General.
- KINGSLEY BOOKS, Inc., Louis Finkelstein, Doing Business as Times Book Shop, et al., Appellants, v. Peter Campbell BROWN, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.
- NotFound v. The BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF The CITY OF NEW YORK.
- William C. CHANDLER, Petitioner, v. FRETAG, Warden.
- Ben SAPIR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- IRVINE v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- WADE v. HUNTER, Warden.
- KOVACS v. COOPER, Judge.
- Gary DUNCAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA.
- JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, Inc., et al. v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al. INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER, Inc., et al. v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al.
- ROCHIN v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
- BEAUHARNAIS v. PEOPLE of the STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- LELAND v. STATE OF OREGON.
- BROCK v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
- Louis Joseph ABBATE and Michael Louis Falcone, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- Alfonse BARTKUS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS.
- Willard UPHAUS, Appellant, v. Louis C. WYMAN, Attorney General, State of New Hampshire.
- James Butler ELKINS and Raymond Frederick Clark, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America.
- OHIO ex rel. EATON, Appellant, v. PRICE, Chief of Police.
- Raphael KONIGSBERG, Petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA and the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State of California.
- Margaret McGOWAN et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF MARYLAND. GALLAGHER, Chief of Police of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, et al., Appellants. v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., et al. TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON-ALLENTOWN, INC., Appellant, v. Paul A. McGINLEY, District Attorney, County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania et al. Abraham BRAUNFELD et al., Appellants, v. Albert N. BROWN, Commissioner of Police of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.
- Albert Martin COHEN, Petitioner, v. Denis M. HURLEY.
- Leslie IRVIN, Petitioner, v. A. F. DOWD, Warden.
- ASHCRAFT et al. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE.
- MALINSKI et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK.
- SCREWS et al. v. UNITED STATES.
- STATE OF LOUISIANA ex rel. FRANCIS v. RESWEBER, Sheriff, et al.
- Paul POE et al., Appellants, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney. Jane DOE, Appellant, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney. C. Lee BUXTON, Appellant, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney.
- Dollree MAPP, etc., Appellant, v. OHIO.
- Nathan JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Wilfred DENNO, Warden.
- William MALLOY, Petitioner, v. Patrick J. HOGAN, Sheriff of Hartford County.
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. George J. WILSON, Jr.