Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Morford v. United States

339 U.S. 258

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1950-04-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding that where panel from which the jury was selected consisted of almost entirely government employees, refusal to allow questions pertaining to possible influence of the federal loyalty oath was error
  • where panel from which the jury was selected consisted of almost entirely government employees, refusal to allow questions pertaining to possible influence of the federal loyalty oath was error
  • where panel from which the jury was selected consisted of almost entirely government em ployees, refusal to allow questions pertaining to possible influence of the federal loyalty oath was error
  • where the Court upheld the right to inquire into political prejudice

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Morford v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
77 opinions
MORFORDv. UNITED STATES,339 U.S. 258(1950)
70 S.Ct. 586
MORFORDv. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
No. 236.
Decided April 10, 1950.
Petitioner, who is Executive Director of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., was convicted in the District of Columbia of violating R. S. § 102,2 U.S.C. § 192, by willfully refusing to produce certain documents before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives in compliance with a subpoena duly served upon him. Onvoir direexamination, counsel for petitioner was not permitted to question government employees on the jury panel with specific reference to the possible influence of Executive Order 9835, the so-called "Loyalty Order," on their ability to render a just and impartial verdict; and four government employees were permitted to serve on the jury over his objection.Held:The conviction is reversed because of this denial of an opportunity to prove actual bias on the part of the government employees who served on the jury. P. 259.

85 U.S.App.D.C. 172,176 F.2d 54, reversed.
Petitioner, who is Executive Director of the National
Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., was indicted
in the District of Columbia for violating R. S. § 102,
2 U.S.C. § 192, by willfully refusing to produce certain
documents before the Committee on Un-American Activities
of the House of Representatives in compliance with
the subpoena duly served upon him. Four government
employees served on the jury over his objection, and he
was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
85 U.S.App.D.C. 172,176 F.2d 54.Certiorari granted and
conviction reversed, p. 259.
Abraham J. Isserman, David ReinandJoseph Forerfor petitioner.Page 259Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney GeneralCampbellandRobert S. Erdahlfor the United States.

Briefs ofamici curiaesupporting petitioner were filed byWilliam L. Standardfor the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy and for the Congress of American Women;Victor Rabinowitz, Nathan WittandLeonardB. Boudinfor the American Communications Association (CIO) et al.;Leo J. Linderfor the Methodist Federation for Social Action;Lester M. Levinfor the National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions; andJohn J. Abtfor the Progressive Party of America et al.
PER CURIAM.
In this case the trial court did not permit counsel for petitioner to interrogate prospective government employee jurors uponvoir direexamination with specific reference to the possible influence of the "Loyalty Order," Executive Order No. 9835, on their ability to render a just and impartial verdict. Such questioning was permitted inDennisv.United States, ante, p. 162; see n. 4 of the Court's opinion,ante, pp. 170-171.

We said inDennisthat "Preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury."Ante, pp. 171-172. Since that opportunity was denied in this case, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER concur in the reversal for the reasons expressed in their opinions inDennisv.United States, ante, p. 162.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurs in the reversal of the judgment. Since, however, counsel requested that allPage 260government employees be excluded from the jury in these cases, he thinks the request should have been granted for the reasons stated by the dissenting Justices inFrazierv.United States,335 U.S. 497, and inDennisv.UnitedStates, ante, p. 162.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 261