United States Reports

APPEAL TO PRURIENT INTEREST. See Constitutional Law,

,
III, 7.
ARBITRARY PENALTIES. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; Crim-

inal Law, 1.
ARMY INTELLIGENCE. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

Justiciability.
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law, VI;

Mootness; Witnesses.
ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 1-2,

4; IV, 2; Immigration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. See Constitutional Law, III, 1; Immi-

gration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
AVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES. See Constitutional Law, VI;

Mootness; Witnesses.
BANKS. See Taxes, 1-3.
BARTENDERS. See Constitutional Law, I, 3; II, 1; Criminal

Law, 2–4; Evidence, 1-2; Procedure, 1.
BEACON PRESS. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional Law, VII,

2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.
BELGIAN JOURNALISTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 1;

Immigration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
BENEFICIARIES. See Taxes, 1-3.
BENEFITS. See Constitutional Law, III, 9; Procedure, 2.
BLACK PANTHER PARTY. See Constitutional Law, III, 8;

Grand Juries, 4.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS. See Taxes, 1-3.

BOARD OF REGENTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 5; III, 9;

Procedure, 2-3.
BRIBERY. See Appeals, 1; Constitutional

Constitutional Law, VII, 1;
Jurisdiction.

BUGGING ACTIVITIES. See Grand Juries, 1.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See Constitutional Law, III, 2, 4; IV, 2.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD. See Administrative

Procedure, 1-5; Interstate Commerce Commission, 1-5; Judi-
cial Review, 2–6.

BUSINESS CONSTRAINTS. See Taxes, 1-3.

CALIFORNIA. See Constitutional Law, III, 8; Grand Juries, 4.
CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2, 4;

IV, 2.
CAPITAL CASES. See Constitutional Law,

See Constitutional Law, II, 2; Criminal
Law, 1.
CASE AND CONTROVERSY. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

,
Justiciability.
CENSORSHIP. See Constitutional Law, III, 8; Grand Juries, 4.

.
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGE. See Constitu-

tional Law, III, 2, 4; IV, 2.
CHALLENGES. See Constitutional Law, V; Evidence, 3.
CHAPTERS OF SDS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2, 4; IV, 2.
CHICAGO. See Constitutional Law, III, 5.
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD.

See Administrative Procedure, 1–5; Interstate Commerce Com-

mission, 1-5; Judicial Review, 2–6.
CHILLING EFFECT.

See
Constitutional

III, 3;
Justiciability.
CITIZENS' DUTY TO TESTIFY. See Constitutional Law, III,

8; Grand Juries, 4.
CIVIL CONTEMPT. See Grand Juries, 1.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

,
Justiciability.
CIVILIAN ACTIVITY. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

Justiciability.
CIVIL RIGHTS. See Constitutional Law, III, 5–6.
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional

Law; VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.

Law,

CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS. See Taxes, 1-3.

COERCION. See Confessions; Constitutional Law, IV, 1.
COLLEGE PROFESSORS. See Constitutional Law, III, 9; Pro-

cedure, 2.
COLLEGES. See Constitutional Law, III, 2, 4; IV, 2.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional

Law, VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SENATOR AND AIDES. See

Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional Law, VII, 2–6; Grand Juries,
2–3, 5.

COMMUNISM. See Constitutional Law, III, 1; Immigration and

Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
COMPELLED TESTIMONY. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional

Law, III, 8; VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 1-5.
COMPETITIVE EFFECTS. See Administrative Procedure, 1–5;

Interstate Commerce Commission, 1-5; Judicial Review, 2–6.
COMPULSORY PROCESS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Moot-

ness; Witnesses.
COMPUTER DATA. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;

Justiciability.
CONDITIONAL LIBERTY. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4;
.

;
Paroles, 1-3.
CONDITIONS OF PAROLE. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4;

Paroles, 1-3.
CONDUCT OF SENATORS. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional

Law, VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.
CONFERENCES. See Constitutional Law, III, 1; Immigration

and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1.
CONFESSIONS. See also Constitutional Law, IV, 1.

Wounded prisoner in extreme pain, under the influence of mor-
phine-Oral confession to hospital doctor.-Petitioner's oral con-
fession was invalid, having been the product of gross coercion and
part of the same "stream of events” that necessitated invalidation of
the written confessions. Beecher v. Alabama, p. 234.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS. See Constitutional Law, III,

8; Grand Juries, 4.
CONFRONTATION. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4; Paroles,

1-3.
CONFRONTATION CLAUSE. See Constitutional Law, VI;

,
Mootness; Witnesses.
CONGRESSIONAL AIDES. See Appeals, 2–3; Constitutional

Law, VII, 2–6; Grand Juries, 2–3, 5.
CONGRESSMEN. See Appeals, 1; Constitutional Law, VII, 1;

Jurisdiction.
CONNECTICUT. See Constitutional Law, III, 2, 4; IV, 2.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Appeals, 1-3; Confessions;

Criminal Law, 1-4; Evidence, 1-3; Grand Juries, 1–5; Immi-
gration and Nationality Act; Judicial Review, 1; Jurisdic-
tion; Justiciability; Mootness; Paroles, 1-3; Procedure, 1-3;
Witnesses.

I. Due Process.
1. Arrest for parole violation-Revocation of parole.—Though

—
parole revocation does not call for the full panoply of rights due a
defendant in a criminal proceeding, a parolee's liberty involves
significant values within the protection of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and termination of that liberty requires
an informal hearing to give assurance that the finding of a parole
violation is based on verified facts to support the revocation. Mor-
rissey v. Brewer, p. 471.

2. Determination whether parole condition was violated.-Due
process requires a reasonably prompt informal inquiry conducted by
an impartial hearing officer near the place of the alleged parole vio-
lation to determine if there is reasonable ground to believe that the
arrested parolee has violated a parole condition. The parolee should
receive prior notice of the inquiry, its purpose, and the alleged viola-
tions. The parolee may present relevant information and (absent
security considerations) question adverse informants. The hearing
officer shall digest the evidence on probable cause and state the
reasons for holding the parolee for the parole board's decision.
Morrissey v. Brewer, p. 471.

3. Other shotgun improperly admitted into evidence-Claim not
raised below.-Petitioner's due process claim as to the shotgun was
not previously raised and therefore is not properly before this Court,
and in any event the introduction of the shotgun does not constitute
federally reversible error. Moore v. Illinois, p. 786.

4. Parolee arrested for parole violation—Hearing on proposed revo-
cation of parole.—At the revocation hearing, which must be con-
ducted reasonably soon after the parolee's arrest, minimum due
process requirements are: (a) written notice of the claimed violations
of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him;
(c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and
documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good
cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a "neutral and detached”
hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which
need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement
by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revok-
ing parole. Morrissey v. Brewer, p. 471.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

5. Teacher hired for one academic year—Not rehired for ensuing
year—No prior hearing.-The Fourteenth Amendment does not re-
quire opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of a non-
tenured state teacher's contract, unless he can show that the non-
renewal deprived him of an interest in "liberty” or that he had a
"property” interest in continued employment, despite the lack of
tenure or a formal contract. Here the nonretention of respondent,
absent any charges against him or stigma or disability foreclosing
other employment, is not tantamount to a deprivation of "liberty,”
and the terms of his employment accorded him no "property” interest
protected by procedural due process. Board of Regents v. Roth,

p. 564.

II. Eighth Amendment.

1. Conviction for murder-Death penalty imposed by jury.—The
sentence of death may not be imposed on petitioner. Moore v.
Illinois, p. 786.

2. Fourteenth Amendment-Death sentences imposed for rapes
and murder.—The imposition and carrying out of the death penalty
in these cases constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judgment in each
case is therefore reversed insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death
sentence imposed, and the cases are remanded for further proceed-
ings. Furman v. Georgia, p. 238; Stewart v. Massachusetts, p. 845.
III. First Amendment.

1. Alien journalist-Marxist scholar invited to participate in aca-
demic conferences-Attorney General refused waiver of ineligibility.-
In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or pre-
scribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in
§ 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has
delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch.
When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate
and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an
alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against
the First Amendment interests of those who would personally com-
municate with the alien. Kleindienst v. Mandel, p. 753.

2. Freedom of association—Assumed relationship with the National
Students for a Democratic Society.—Insofar as the college's denial
of recognition to petitioners' group was based on an assumed relation-
ship with the National SDS, or was a result of disagreement with
the group's philosophy, or was a consequence of a fear of disrup-
tion, for which there was no support in the record, the college's

« Forrige Fortsett »

Bøker

United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court, Volum 408