ROSENBERG ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; AND SOBELL 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 Court denied the petition for certiorari, meaning not enough justices found the grounds for review sufficiently important. The Court also noted that it cannot revise sentences imposed by district courts.
Petitioners were under death sentence and sought review in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals had reviewed the case with extraordinary care. The …
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 Discretionary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
ante, p. 838. Motion for leave to file brief of Dr. W. E. B. Dubois and others, as amici curiae, denied. Petitions for rehearing denied. Memorandum filed by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in No. 111.
Mr. Justice Black adheres to his view that the petitions for certiorari should be granted.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter. Petitioners are under death sentence, and it is not unreasonable to feel that before life is taken review should be open in the highest court of the society which has condemned them. Such right of review was the law of the land for twenty years. By § 6 of the Act of February 6, 1889, 25 Stat. 655, 656, convictions in capital cases arising under federal statutes were appealable here. But in 1911 Congress abolished the appeal as of right, and since then death sentences have come here only under the same conditions that apply to any criminal conviction in a federal court. (§§ 128, 238, 240 and 241 of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1087, 1133, 1157.)
The Courts of Appeals are charged by Congress with the duty of reviewing all criminal convictions. These are courts of great authority and corresponding responsibility. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was deeply conscious of its responsibility in this case. Speaking through Judge Frank, it said: “Since two of the defendants must be put to death if the judgments stand, it goes without saying that we have scrutinized the record with extraordinary care to see whether it contains any of the errors asserted on this appeal.” 195 F. 2d 583, 590.
After further consideration, the Court has adhered to its denial of this petition for certiorari. Misconception regarding the meaning of such a denial persists despite repeated attempts at explanation. It means, and all that it means is, that there were not four members of the Court to whom the grounds on which the decision of the Court of Appeals was challenged seemed sufficiently important when judged by the standards governing the issue of the discretionary writ of certiorari. It also deserves to be repeated that the effective administration of justice precludes this Court from giving reasons, however briefly, for its denial of a petition for certiorari. I have heretofore explained the reasons that for me also militate against noting individual votes when a petition for cer-tiorari is denied. See Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors, 343 U. S. 982.
Numerous grounds were urged in support of this petition for certiorari; the petition for rehearing raised five additional questions. So far as these questions come within the power of this Court to adjudicate, I do not, of course, imply any opinion upon them. One of the questions, however, first raised in the petition for rehearing, is beyond the scope of the authority of this Court, and I deem it appropriate to say so. A sentence imposed by a United States district court, even though it be a death sentence, is not within the power of this Court to revise.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Dick v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1959)…judgment, of- the Court of Appeals. E. g., Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912; Bondholders, Inc., v. Powell, 342 U. S. 921; Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors. 343 U. S. 982; Rosenberg v. United States, 344 U. S. 889. Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826 (commonly known as the Evarts or Circuit Courts of Appeals Act). H. R. Rep. .No. 1295, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. 3. Ibid. See 21 Cong. Rec. 3403-3405, 10220-10222; 22 Cong. Rec. 3585. Ibid. 26 Stat. 828. 21 Con…
-
Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1973)…er 28 U.S.C. § 2106. See Smith v. United States, 273 F. 2d 462, 468-469 (10th Cir. 1959) (Murrah, J., dissenting) ; United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F. 2d 583, 604-607 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 652, rehearing denied, 344 U.S. 889, 73 S.Ct. 134, 97 L.Ed. 687 (1952). A few courts, without referring to statutory authority, have indicated that federal appellate courts possess the power to review a sentence imposed within the statutory maximum if it appears that the trial judge…
-
Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1953)…stay is not and could not be based upon any doubt that a legal conviction was had under the Espionage Act. Application here for review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction was refused, 344 U. S. 838, and rehearing later denied, 344 U. S. 889. Later, responsible and authorized counsel raised, among other issues, questions as to the sentence, and an application [*291] was made for stay until they could be heard. The application was referred to the full Court, with the recommendation that…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1952)
- Chem. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Grp. of Institutional Invs., 343 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1952)