TURNER et al. v. NEW YORK, 386 U.S. 773 (1967)
- Argued:
- April 12, 1967
- Decided:
- May 08, 1967
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1966
- Action:
- Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Majority Opinion
Earl Warren Hugo Black Tom Clark John Harlan (1955-71) William Brennan Potter Stewart Byron White
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
TURNER ET AL.
v.
NEW YORK.
Supreme Court of United States.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
Osmond K. Fraenkel argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
H. Richard Uviller argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Frank S. Hogan.
PER CURIAM.
The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE FORTAS concurs, dissenting.
This case arose out of an assembly in Duffy Square, New York City, protesting American policy in Vietnam. After a few minutes of speeches, the police dispersed the crowd, utilizing two policemen on horseback and a dozen patrolmen.
The complaint charged disorderly conduct,
“in that with intent to provoke a breach of the peace and under circumstances whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned, the defendants did unlawfully congregate and assemble at the above location obstructing the area to the exclusion of those wishing to use same, and did delay vehicular traffic while carrying placards and using loud and boisterous language; by their actions did cause a crowd to collect; [w]hen ordered to move on the defendants did fail to do so, after being informed that their actions were not lawful.”
*774 The evidence showed that the meeting was peaceful and orderly until the horses arrived. Up to that time the crowd was apparently small with no one paying much attention. The bulk of the evidence at the trial related to acts of individual petitioners during the period when the police were trying to disperse the crowd, that is, between the advent of the horses and the arrests. After the appearance by the police, there was a minor disturbance, one person hitting a horse with a rolled-up cardboard placard, one biting a policeman, and one lying down. But these acts were not charged in the complaint. While no opinion was written by the trial court, the Appellate Term did write and in its opinion relied heavily on these post-dispersion facts to justify the convictions. 48 Misc. 2d 611, 613-618, 619, 265 N. Y. S. 2d 841, 843-847, 849. But as stated by Judge Hofstadter in dissent:
“The occurrences now offered as a basis for upholding the convictions were not the subject of the complaint charged. And the events, including any alleged disturbance by any defendant, ensuing upon the order, were the direct and immediate issue of a misconception by the police of the lawful warrant and scope of their authority.” 48 Misc. 2d, at 630, 265 N. Y. S. 2d, at 860.
A conviction on one ground may not be sustained on grounds that might have been charged but were not. “It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201. And see Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87; Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 195.
*775 Likewise a conviction “upon a charge not made” is not consistent with due process. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 362.
Where First Amendment rights are involved, as they were here, we have been meticulous to insist upon clean-cut violations of ordinances protecting law and order, lest broad or fuzzy applications be used to suffocate or impair the exercise of those constitutional rights. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 237; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 551-552; Ashton v. Kentucky, supra, at 200-201.
Issues of that character and gravity are tendered here and I would resolve them.
ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, SR., et al., 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
DEBORAH MORSE, et al. v. JOSEPH FREDERICK, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
VIRGINIA v. BARRY ELTON BLACK, RICHARD J. ELLIOTT, AND JONATHAN O’MARA, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
PAUL SCHENCK AND DWIGHT SAUNDERS v. PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK et al., 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., et al., 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. SHAWN D. EICHMAN, DAVID GERALD BLALOCK AND SCOTT W. TYLER, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION et al., 493 U.S. 411 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
MICHAEL BOOS, J. MICHAEL WALLER AND BRIDGET BROOKER v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. ALBERTINI, 472 U.S. 675 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al., 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. et al., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAREY, STATE’S ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY v. BROWN et al., 447 U.S. 455 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SPENCE v. WASHINGTON, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SMITH, SHERIFF v. GOGUEN, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 415 U.S. 130 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 414 U.S. 14 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
PLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, 414 U.S. 2 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GOODING, WARDEN v. WILSON, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
COATES et al. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BACHELLAR et al. v. MARYLAND, 397 U.S. 564 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JONES v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TENNESSEE et al., 397 U.S. 31 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
COWGILL v. CALIFORNIA, 396 U.S. 371 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GREGORY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 394 U.S. 111 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TINKER et al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. O’BRIEN, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ZWICKER et al. v. BOLL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DANE COUNTY et al., 391 U.S. 353 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAMERON et al. v. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., 390 U.S. 611 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. OVERSTREET, 384 U.S. 118 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 382 U.S. 87 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
HENRY et al. v. CITY OF ROCK HILL, 376 U.S. 776 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD., 375 U.S. 248 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 522 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
HUGHES ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 339 U.S. 460 (1950)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
KOVACS v. COOPER, JUDGE, 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CARLSON v. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106 (1940)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
Topics: Freedom of Assembly & Petition, Protests
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE