Dennis Vs United States Essay, Research Paper

Dennis V.S. United States

Petitioner who is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S. was

convicted in the District of Columbia for misdemeanor R.S. 102, 2 U.S.C. 192, He failed to

appear before the committe of the Un-american Activities of the Houise of

Representatives. Goverment employees on the jury panel were interrogated

separately by suppliants advocate as to the fact that he was a Communist. Executive

Order 9835 gave criterions for the discharge of goverment employees if there is

sensible grounds that they are unpatriotic to the goverment. This would forestall them

from happening a just anf impartial finding of fact. 7 goverment emplyees that gave negative

replies to all the inquiries and testified that they would give a just and impartial

finding of fact were permitted to function on the jury. George W. Crockett, Jr. argued the cause

for suppliant besides on his side Earl Dickerson, David M. , Freedman and Harry Sacher.

Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States besides on his side

Assistant Attorney General Campbell, Robery S. Erdahl and Harold D. Cohen. For the

National Lawyers Guild was Robert J. Silberstein. He failed to look before the

Commitee on Un-american Activites in conformity with a subpoena duly served upon

him. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 31,171 F.2d 986. They where

granted certiorari limited to the inquiries wheather goverment employees could

decently waiter on the jury which tried suppliant. He voluntarily appeared before the

House Commitee on Un-American Activities which had under consideration two measures to

outlaw the Communist Party. Petitioner was and is General Secretary of the United

States. He refused to reply inquiries as to his name and the day of the month and topographic point of birth

in forepart of the Commitee. The Chairman of the Commitee directed that a sbpoena be

served forthwith upon suppliant, doing him hold to come before the Commitee on

April 9, 1947. He did non app ear but sent a representative. The Commitee reported

his refusal to look to the House of Representatives, and the Hou

se adopted a

declaration attesting the study of the Committee to the United States Attorney for the

District of Comlumbia. The Petitioner was Subsequently indicted. When the instance came

to test, the suppliant said that he could non obtain a just and impartial tiral in the

District of Columbia. He posted [ 339 U.S 162, 165 ] this was chiefly on the land that

goverment employees, who take a big portion of the Districts population, Executive

order 9835, 12 Fed. Reg. 1935 That provided criterions for dispatching on sensible

evidences for belief that they are unpatriotic to the Goverment of United States. The

gesture was denied. Attorney for suppliant questioned separately each member of the

panel who indicated that he was employed by the Goverment. He challenged for cause

all Goverment employees. It was denied. He exhausted all his peremptory challenges.

Seven of the 12 eventually selected were Goverment employees. The suppliant,

Dennis was convicted of willfully declining to give testimony before the House

Committee on Um-American Activities. The grounds against him was really strong. But

no affair how strong the grounds was he had a constitutional right to hold it passed

on by an impartial jury. Each juryman asserted that he or she could vote for acquittal

without fright of inauspicious effects. Under Executive Order 9835 vigorous demands

by the congressional commission which had initiated the prosecution of Dennis. Any of

these employees would lose his occupation if a & # 8220 ; loyalty trial & # 8221 ; revealed & # 8220 ; sensible evidences & # 8221 ;

for the belief that he was unpatriotic. The Affidavit asserted that commission members

& # 8220 ; have stated openly on the floor of the House of Representatives that they demand a

presecution and strong beliefs of, and the infliction of the maximal penalty on this

defendent. The figure of possible jurymans felt that dennis & # 8217 ; s place as Secretary of

the Committee Party in this state would alone forestall their giving him a just test.

Goverment employees on the jury panel were interogated separately by the

suppliants advocate as to whether the fact that suppliant was communist. This was the

instance.