Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Weber v. United States, 1952 — 344 U.S. 834 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Weber v. United States
344 U.S. 834·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 236.
Weber v. United States.
Howard W. Ameli and James F. Ryan for petitioner.
Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Murray and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Frankfurter.]
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Memorandum filed by Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
This is another instance where I deem it appropriate to indicate what was before us in a petition for certiorari. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U. S. 912. One of the questions presented by this petition is the sufficiency of the claim that the verdict was vitiated because publications reflecting adversely on the defendant, before any testimony was taken in the case, precluded a fair and impartial trial. Under the circumstances the Court of Appeals, composed of Swan, Chief Judge, Augustus N. Hand and Frank, Circuit Judges, rejected the claim while acknowledging that
“such comments by newspapers [as revealed by the exhibits herein] during the pendency of a criminal trial are inexcusable. ” United States v. Weber, 197 F. 2d 237, 239.
“In England it is probable that the publishers would be severely penalized. See cases cited in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U. S. 912, 921-936, 70 S. Ct. 252, 94 L. Ed. 562."