Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Citation. 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961).
Defendant was convicted under the Smith Act and challenged the constitutionality of his conviction.
Speech may be restricted under the Smith Act when it is aimed at building up a seditious group and maintaining it in readiness for action at a propitious time. This includes an individual advocating for specific illegal acts.
Defendant was convicted of violating the membership clause of the Smith Act, which made it a crime to become a member of an organization advocating the overthrow of government by force or violence. On appeal, Defendant challenged that the evidence was insufficient to establish “advocacy of action” under Yates.
Whether a jury could infer that the Defendant’s conduct, in whole or in part, was aimed at building up a seditious group and maintaining it in readiness for action at a propitious time.
Yes. A jury could infer that the Defendant’s conduct, in whole or in part, was aimed at building up a seditious group and maintaining it in readiness for action at a propitious time.
Justice Black
I see no crime. Defendant is being sent to jail for the express reason that he has associated with people who have entertained unlawful ideas and said unlawful things. This is a direct abridgment of his freedoms of speech and assembly.
Justice Douglas
Active membership is not enough. Not a single illegal act is charged to Defendant. The essence of the indictment is a mere belief in Communist creed.
We agree with the Defendant that Yates controls. Yates imposed a strict standard of proof, which is met here based on the evidence presented. The evidence amply showed that party leaders were continuously preaching during the indictment period. Moreover, this is the kind of indoctrination preparatory to action that was previously condemned in Dennis. As such, on balance the jury reached a reasonable decision based on a permissible inference. Judgement affirmed.