Dennis Vs United States Essay, Research Paper
Dennis V.S. United States
Petitioner who is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S. was
convicted in the District of Columbia for violation R.S. 102, 2 U.S.C. 192, He failed to
appear before the committe of the Un-American Activities of the Houise of
Representatives. Goverment employees on the jury panel were interrogated
individually by petitioners counsel as to the fact that he was a Communist. Executive
Order 9835 gave standards for the discharge of goverment employees if there is
reasonable evidence that they are disloyal to the goverment. This would prevent them
from finding a fair anf impartial verdict. 7 goverment emplyees that gave negative
answers to all the questions and testified that they would give a fair and impartial
verdict were permitted to serve on the jury. George W. Crockett, Jr. argued the cause
for petitioner also on his side Earl Dickerson, David M., Freedman and Harry Sacher.
Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States also on his side
Assistant Attorney General Campbell, Robery S. Erdahl and Harold D. Cohen. For the
National Lawyers Guild was Robert J. Silberstein. He failed to appear before the
Commitee on Un-American Activites in compliance with a subpoena duly served upon
him. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 31,171 F.2d 986. They where
granted certiorari limited to the questions wheather goverment employees could
properly server on the jury which tried petitioner. He voluntarily appeared before the
House Commitee on Un-American Activities which had under consideration two bills to
outlaw the Communist Party. Petitioner was and is General Secretary of the United
States. He refused to answer questions as to his name and the date and place of birth
in front of the Commitee. The Chairman of the Commitee directed that a sbpoena be
served forthwith upon petitioner, making him have to come before the Commitee on
April 9, 1947. He did not app ear but sent a representative. The Commitee reported
his refusal to appear to the House of Representatives, and the House adopted a
resolution certifying the report of the Committee to the United States Attorney for the
District of Comlumbia. The Petitioner was Subsequently indicted. When the case came
to trial, the petitioner said that he could not obtain a fair and impartial tiral in the
District of Columbia. He posted [339 U.S 162, 165] this was mainly on the ground that
goverment employees, who take a large part of the Districts population, Executive
order 9835, 12 Fed. Reg. 1935 That provided standards for discharging on reasonable
grounds for belief that they are disloyal to the Goverment of United States. The
motion was denied. Attorney for petitioner questioned individually each member of the
panel who indicated that he was employed by the Goverment. He challenged for cause
all Goverment employees. It was denied. He exhausted all his peremptory challenges.
Seven of the twelve finally selected were Goverment employees. The petitioner,
Dennis was convicted of wilfully refusing to give testimony before the House
Committee on Um-American Activities. The evidence against him was very strong. But
no matter how strong the evidence was he had a constitutional right to have it passed
on by an impartial jury. Each juror asserted that he or she could vote for acquittal
without fear of adverse consequences. Under Executive Order 9835 vigorous demands
by the congressional committee which had initiated the prosecution of Dennis. Any of
these employees would lose his job if a “loyalty test” revealed “reasonable grounds”
for the belief that he was disloyal. The Affidavit asserted that committee members
“have stated openly on the floor of the House of Representatives that they demand a
presecution and convictions of, and the imposition of the maximum punishment on this
defendent. The number of potential jurors felt that dennis’s position as Secretary of
the Committee Party in this country would alone prevent their giving him a fair trial.
Goverment employees on the jury panel were interogated individually by the
petitioners counsel as to whether the fact that petitioner was communist. This was the
case.