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.
Thompson v. United States, 1973 — 414 U.S. 918 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Thompson v. United States
414 U.S. 918·Supreme Court of the United States·1973
Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.
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. 72-1498.
Thompson v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Douglas,]
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
The petitioner here was convicted in District Court of conspiring to transport forged securities in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 2314, and of aiding and abetting the substantive crime. The trial judge's instruction to the jury did not clearly require that it find that defendant had knowledge of the interstate character of the transaction. Regardless of whether the substantive count requires such knowledge, it seems clear that the conspiracy offense would. See the opinion of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Crimmins, 123 F. 2d 271, 273 (CA2 1941). Moreover, here as in Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837 (1973), we deal with an offense traditionally treated as a local law question; it becomes federal only through the nexus with interstate commerce. See my dissenting opinion in Barnes v. United States, supra, p. 848. Proof of that nexus is therefore required for conviction. I would grant certiorari.