ST. PIERRE
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a case is moot when the petitioner has fully served their sentence for contempt before certiorari was granted, as there is no longer a subject matter upon which the Court's judgment can operate.
Petitioner confessed to embezzlement before a grand jury but refused to name the victim, leading to a contempt conviction and a five-month sentence. P…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam:.
Petitioner, who it is alleged had in his testimony before a federal grand jury confessed to the commission of the crime of embezzlement, refused to divulge the name of the person whose money he had embezzled. For the refusal the district court sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment for contempt of court, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment. 132 F. 2d 837. We granted certiorari, 318 U. S. 751, on a petition which raised important questions with respect to petitioner’s constitutional immunity from self-incrimination. In the order allowing the writ we requested counsel to discuss the question whether the case had become moot.
On the argument it was conceded that petitioner had fully served his sentence before certiorari was granted. We are of opinion that the case is moot because, after petitioner’s service of his sentence and its expiration, there was no longer a subject matter 'on which the judgment of this Court could operate. A federal court is without power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it. United States v. Alaska S.
S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 115-16, and cases cited; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475-77. The sentence cannot be enlarged by this Court’s judgment, and reversal of the judgment below cannot operate to undo what has been done or restore to petitioner the penally of the term of imprisonment which he has served. Nor has petitioner shown that under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed on him as a result of the judgment which has now been satisfied. In these respects the case differs from that of an injunction whose command continues to operate in futuro even though obeyed. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Goodyear Co., 304 U. S. 257, 260, and cases cited.
It does not appear that petitioner could not have brought his case to this Court for review before the expiration of his sentence, and although it is said he applied for bail to the district court and to the circuit court of appeals, he did not apply to this Court for a stay or a supersedeas. The Government admits that petitioner will be required to testify again before the grand jury and that in the event of his refusal it will ask that he be committed until he answers. In that case, there will be ample opportunity to review such a judgment; and even though he be sentenced to a fixed term, the questions which he seeks to raise here may be preserved by his admission to bail, or by the grant of a stay or a supersedeas, for which he may apply to this Court if necessary. In all these respects the case differs from Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, which we do not regard as controlling here.
Petitioner also suggests that the judgment may impair his credibility as witness in any future legal proceeding. But the moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review. Since the cause is moot, the writ will be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (93 total)
-
Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ter is not moot. Many of the cases discussing appeals as moot where the contemnor has paid the fine or served the sentence levied for contempt of court rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943). There the court held that the case was moot because the petitioner had fully served his sentence before certiorari was granted. However, in a later case2 the court refined the rule by stating that St. Pierre “mus…
-
Merrill v. State, 225 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…dismiss this appeal in its entirety on the ground that the appeal has been rendered moot by payment of the fine imposed upon defendant. In support of this position, the state cites the United States Supreme Court case of St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943). We do not find the St. Pierre case to be authority for a dismissal of the instant appeal. Therefore, we cannot agree with the state’s contention and deny the motion to dismiss this appeal. The state has moved in…
-
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968)…Mr. Justice Fortas, concurring. 1. I would construe St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41 (1943), in light of later cases, to mean that a criminal case is moot if it appears that no collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction. (Cf. majority opinion, ante, at 57-58.) 2. I join without qualifica…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 93 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & Young, 219 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1911)
- United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1920)
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 304 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1938)
- United States v. ST. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1942)
- St. Pierre v. United States, 318 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1943)