Criminal Law · MBE-tested
MARDER v. MASSACHUSETTS
377 U.S. 40712 L. Ed. 2d 405·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins, · Mr. Justice White is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Brief incoming
Source-anchored 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
MARDER v. MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 819.
Decided June 1, 1964.
Appellant pro se.
Edward W. Brooke, Attorney General of Massachusetts, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Goldberg,]
Mr. Justice Goldberg,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
dissenting.
This appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, General Laws of Mass., c. 90, §§20 and 20A, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty and paying a small fine, or going to trial and thereby exposing himself to the possibility of a greater punishment if found guilty. I express no view on the merits of this question. But I would note probable jurisdiction, since the issue, in my view, presents a substantial federal question, and since I am not convinced that the generally sound advice to “pay the two dollars” necessarily reflects a constitutionally permissible requirement.
Mr. Justice White is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.