Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Abdul v. United States
364 U.S. 832·Supreme Court of the United States·1960
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas would not only correct the sentence under Count VII; they would also grant the writ to review the correctness, under Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, of the District Court’s charge to’ the jury regarding the requirement of willfulness in the commission of the statutory violations of which the petitioner stands convicted.
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. 104.
Abdul v. United States.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas would not only correct the sentence under Count VII; they would also grant the writ to review the correctness, under Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, of the District Court’s charge to’ the jury regarding the requirement of willfulness in the commission of the statutory violations of which the petitioner stands convicted.
Howard K. Hoddick for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Meyer Rothwacks and Lawrence K. Bailey for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied, the Court having duly noted the Solicitor General’s concession that the sentence under Count VII of the indictment cannot stand and his undertaking that the Government will duly present to the District Court, under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for correction of the sentence.