CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
decision violated the petitioners' First Amendment rights. Healy v. James, p. 169.
3. Freedom of association-Civil disorders-Army's compilation of data on civilian political activities.—Civilians' claim that their First Amendment rights are chilled, due to the mere existence of the data-gathering system, does not constitute a justiciable controversy on the basis of the record in this case, disclosing as it does no show- ing of objective harm or threat of specific future harm. Laird v. Tatum, p. 1.
4. Freedom of association-Leftist students organizing as Students for a Democratic Society-Denial of recognition as campus organiza- tion.-Lower courts erred in (1) discounting the cognizable First Amendment associational interest that petitioners had in furthering their personal beliefs, and (2) assuming that the burden was on petitioners to show entitlement to recognition by the college rather than on the college to justify its nonrecognition of the group, once petitioners had made application conformably to college requirements. Healy v. James, p. 169.
5. Freedom of expression-Peaceful picketing near school in violation of city ordinance.-City ordinance prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of a school, except peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute, is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it makes an impermis- sible distinction between peaceful labor picketing and other peaceful picketing. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, p. 92; Grayned v. City of Rockford, p. 104.
6. Freedom of speech-Antinoise ordinance-Mass demonstration while school is in session.-Antinoise ordinance prohibiting a person while on grounds adjacent to a building in which a school is in session from willfully making a noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the school session is not unconstitutionally vague since, with fair warning, it prohibits only actual or imminent, and willful, interference with normal school activity, and is not a broad invitation to discriminatory enforcement; nor is the ordinance overbroad as unduly interfering with First Amendment rights since expressive activity is prohibited only if it "materially disrupts classwork." Grayned v. City of Rockford, p. 104.
7. Freedom of the press-Obscenity statute-Underground news- paper's publication of pictures of nudes and a sex poem.-In the context in which they appeared, the photographs were rationally re-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
lated to a news article, in conjunction with which they appeared, and were entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. In view of the poem's content and placement with other poems inside the newspaper, its dominant theme cannot be said to appeal to prurient interest. Kois v. Wisconsin, p. 229.
8. Newspaper reporters-Grand jury subpoenas-Protection of confidential sources.-The First Amendment does not relieve a news- paper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a crim- inal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof. Branzburg v. Hayes, p. 665.
9. Professor's public statements critical of administration-One- year employment contract not renewed.-Lack of a contractual or tenure right to re-employment, taken alone, did not defeat respond- ent's claim that the nonrenewal of his contract violated his free speech right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court erred in foreclosing determination of the contested issue whether the decision not to renew was based on respondent's exercise of his right of free speech. Perry v. Sindermann, p. 593. IV. Fourteenth Amendment.
1. Due process-Wounded prisoner in extreme pain, under the influence of morphine-Oral confession to hospital doctor.-Peti- tioner's oral confession was invalid, having been the product of gross coercion and part of the same "stream of events" that neces- sitated invalidation of the written confessions. Beecher v. Alabama, p. 234.
2. Procedural due process-Proper basis for nonrecognition.— Proper basis for nonrecognition of local chapter of SDS might have been afforded by a showing that the petitioners' group refused to comply with a rule requiring them to abide by reasonable campus regulations. Since the record is not clear whether the college has such a rule and, if so, whether petitioners intend to observe it, these issues remain to be resolved. Healy v. James, p. 169.
Warrant authorizing search for, and seizure of, stolen whiskey- Searched premises owned by petitioner's father-Petitioner not present. Since the Government now suggests that the warrant was invalid, and since the record is inadequate for a determination of
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
whether petitioner had an interest in the searched premises that would afford him standing under Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364, to challenge the legality of the search, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Combs v. United States, p. 224.
State's witness moved permanently to foreign country.-Where a State's witness is bona fide unavailable, the requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met when prior-recorded testimony of the witness is admitted in second trial if that prior testimony bears "indicia of reliability" that would afford "the trier of fact a satis- factory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement." Mancusi v. Stubbs, p. 204.
VII. Speech or Debate Clause.
1. Former United States Senator charged with solicitation and acceptance of bribes-Vote on pending legislation.-Although the Speech or Debate Clause protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since in this case prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. United States v. Brewster, p. 501.
2. Interrogation of Senator's aide-Scope of questioning.-Aide may be questioned by the grand jury about the source of classified documents in the Senator's possession, as long as the questioning implicates no legislative act. The Court of Appeals' protective order in other respects would suffice if it forbade questioning the aide or others about the conduct or motives of the Senator or his aides at the subcommittee meeting; communications between the Senator and his aides relating to that meeting or any legislative act of the Senator; or steps of the Senator or his aides preparatory for the meeting, if not relevant to third-party crimes. Gravel v. United States, p. 606.
3. Questioning Senator's aide-Protective order.-The Court of Appeals' protective order was overly broad in enjoining interroga- tion of the aide with respect to any act, "in the broadest sense,' that he performed within the scope of his employment, since the aide's immunity extended only to legislative acts as to which the Senator would be immune. Gravel v. United States, p. 606.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
4. Senate subcommittee meeting-Chairman's aide's preparations for meeting. The Speech or Debate Clause applies not only to a Member of Congress but also to his aide, insofar as the aide's con- duct would be a protected legislative act if performed by the Member himself. Gravel v. United States, p. 606.
5. Senate subcommittee meeting-Classified documents in public record-Grand jury investigating private republication.-The Speech or Debate Clause does not extend immunity to the Senator's aide from testifying before the grand jury about the alleged arrange- ment for private publication of the Pentagon Papers, as such pub- lication had no connection with the legislative process. Gravel v. United States, p. 606.
6. Testimonial privilege.-Senator's aide had no nonconstitutional testimonial privilege from being questioned by the grand jury in connection with its inquiry into whether private publication of the Pentagon Papers violated federal law. Gravel v. United States, p. 606.
CONTEMPT. See Constitutional Law, III, 8; Grand Juries, 1, 4. CONTINGENCY PLANS. See Constitutional Law, III, 3;
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT. See Constitutional Law, I, 5; III, 9; Procedure, 2-3.
CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDERS. See Taxes, 1-3.
CONVICTIONS. See Constitutional Law, VI; Mootness; Witnesses.
CORPORATE DIRECTORS. See Taxes, 1-3.
CORPORATIONS. See Taxes, 1-3.
COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law, VI; Mootness; Witnesses. COURT ORDERS. See Constitutional Law, III, 8; Grand Juries, 4.
CRIMINAL LAW. See also Appeals, 1-3; Confessions; Con- stitutional Law, I, 1-4; II, 1-2; III, 6-8; IV, 1; V; VI; VII, 1-6; Evidence, 1-3; Grand Juries, 1-5; Mootness; Pa- roles, 1-3; Procedure, 1; Witnesses.
1. Death sentences imposed for rapes and murder.-The imposi- tion and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases con- stitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judgment in each case is there- fore reversed insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death sentence
imposed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings. Furman v. Georgia, p. 238.
2. Eighth Amendment-Conviction for murder-Death penalty imposed by jury.-The sentence of death may not be imposed on petitioner. Moore v. Illinois, p. 786.
3. Pretrial motion for disclosure-Criminal trial-Items of evi- dence helpful to the defense.-The evidentiary items (other than a diagram) on which petitioner bases his suppression claim relate to a witness' misidentification of petitioner as "Slick" and not to the identification, by that witness and others, of petitioner as the person who made the incriminating statements. These evidentiary items are not material under the standard of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 830. Moore v. Illinois, p. 786.
4. Pretrial motion for disclosure-Murder trial-Item of evidence helpful to the defense.-A diagram showing the positions of cus- tomers at a bar where a shotgun slaying occurred does not support petitioner's contention that the State knowingly permitted false testimony to remain uncorrected, in violation of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, since the diagram does not show that it was impos- sible for a prosecution witness to see the shooting. Moore v. Illinois, p. 786.
CRITICISM OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. See Constitu- tional Law, I, 5; III, 9; Procedure, 2-3.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONS. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4; VI; Mootness; Paroles, 1-3; Witnesses.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. See Constitutional Law, II, 1-2; Criminal Law, 1.
CUSTODY. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2, 4; Paroles, 1-3. DATA-GATHERING SYSTEMS. See Constitutional Law, III, 3; Justiciability.
DEATH PENALTY. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; Criminal Law, 1.
DEATH SENTENCES. See Constitutional Law, II, 2; Criminal Law, 1.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES. See Taxes, 1-3.
DE FACTO TENURE PROGRAMS. See Constitutional Law, III, 9; Procedure, 2.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. See Appeals, 2-3; Constitutional Law, III, 3; VII, 2-6; Grand Juries, 2-3, 5; Justiciability.
« ForrigeFortsett » |