Thompson v. United States
Waverly Thompson v. United States
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.
Dissent
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 *919 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.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
414 U.S. 918 94 S.Ct. 214 38 L.Ed.2d 154
Waverly THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES.
No. 72-1498.
Supreme Court of the United States
October 15, 1973
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
1
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 they 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 , 93 S.Ct. 2357 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (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 , at 848, 93 S.Ct. 2357 . Proof of that nexus is therefore required for conviction. I would grant certiorari.
2
Mr. Justice STEWART would grant certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“A show of lenience to those who exhibit contrition by admitting guilt does not carry a corollary that the Judge indulges in a policy of penalizing those who elect to stand trial.”)
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals9
- Federal District Courts2
- State Highest Courts6
- State Appellate Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.