Opinion · District of Columbia Court of Appeals
United States v. Nicholson
263 A.2d 56
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- District of Columbia
- Date
- 1970-03-13
- Topic
- general
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Joan NICHOLSON et al., Appellees. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Steven H. BURNS et al., Appellees.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Nicholson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 13 opinions
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Joan NICHOLSON et al., Appellees. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Steven H. BURNS et al., Appellees. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Robert L. ANTHONY et al., Appellees.
Nos. 5065-5067.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued Nov. 12, 1969.
Decided March 13, 1970.
John G. Gill, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, John F. Evans and Frederick G. Watts, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant.
Ralph J. Temple, Washington, D. C., for appellees. Robert C. Maynard, Washing*57ton, D. C., entered an appearance for ap-pellees.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and KELLY and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.
The Government appeals from the dismissals of informations charging appellees with unlawful entry1 in refusing to quit the East Front steps of the United States Capitol after being ordered to do so by the Chief of the Capitol Police. The authority relied upon to issue such order is the Capitol Grounds statute.2 Appellees moved to dismiss the informations on the ground that § 9-124 of the statute is unconstitutional,3 on its face 4 and as applied. The Government took the contrary position.5 Chief Judge Greene took testimony on the motions and thereafter, in a comprehensive memorandum opinion, adopted a construction of the statute which saves it from unconstitutionality.6 Holding the case of Edwards v. South Carolina 7 controlling, Judge Greene found sufficient basis in legislative and other materials for restricting the overbroad scope of § 9-124 “to the imposition of criminal punishment for acts or conduct which interferes with the orderly processes of the Congress, or with the safety of individual legislators, staff members, visitors, or tourists, or their right to be free from intimidation, undue pressure, noise, or inconvenience.” As so limited, he said, the statute is constitutional. Since the Government could not present facts which would justify a conviction based on these standards, the informations were dismissed for failure to state an offense under the statute as interpreted.
We conclude that the trial court correctly analyzed and applied the law to the facts of these cases. Accordingly, the judgments of dismissal are
Affirmed.