SILBER
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 held that the indictment was defective and the petitioner's motion to dismiss should have been granted.
The petitioner was tried on an indictment identical to those previously held defective. The petitioner filed a timely motion to dismiss, which was den…
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 Defective Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749. The indictment upon which the petitioner was tried was identical to those held defective in Russell. The petitioner’s timely motion to dismiss the indictment, made in accord with Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 12 (b)(2), was erroneously denied by the District Court.
Although the trial court squarely considered and decided the issue raised by the motion to dismiss, it was apparently not presented to the Court of Appeals and was not briefed or argued in this Court. While ordinarily we do not take note of errors not called to the attention of the Court of Appeals nor properly raised here, that rule is not without exception. The Court has “the power to notice a ‘plain error’ though it is not assigned or specified,” Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 412.* “In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160. Our own rules provide that “the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented.” Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 40 (1) (d)(2). See also Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 52 (b).
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 779, 781.
*
See Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448, 450; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 45; Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 362. See also Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (63 total)
-
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)…. This assumption ignores the role of appellate review, for the reported cases are replete with instances of a convicted defendant being relieved of a [*846] deliberate decision even when made with the advice of counsel. See Silber v. United States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962). It is totally unrealistic, therefore, to suggest that an accused will always be held to the consequences of a decision to conduct his own defense. Unless, as may be the case, most persons accused of crime have more wit than to insist upon th…
-
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1976)…ility of the Griggs and Title VII standards in resolving this case, petitioners presented issues going only to whether Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), had been misapplied by the Court of Appeals. See, e. g., Silber v. United States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962); Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 412 (1947); Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 16 (1941); Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 45 (1924); Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 362 (1910). Although Title VII standards have dominated…
-
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1971)…where the parties have not briefed or argued a question that the Court nevertheless finds controlling under its authority to notice plain error. See Rule 40(1) (d)(2), [*321] Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States; Silber v. United States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962). Rather, given what transpired at oral argument, the case is like Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375 (1970). There, after granting certiorari, we asked the parties to brief and argue the continued validity of The Harrisburg,…
Previewing 3 of 63 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1962)
- United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1936)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1910)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. United States, 330 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1947)
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1926)
- Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1924)
- Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1939)