3. Alien crewman remaining in United States after expiration of
permit-Trial-Venue.-Alien crewman willfully remaining in United
States after expiration of landing permit is guilty of continuing
offense and may be prosecuted in any district where he is found.
United States v. Cores, p. 405.
ANARCHIST ACT OF 1918. See Aliens, 2.
ANNUITIES. See Taxation, 5.
ANTITRUST ACTS. See also Procedure, 8.
Sherman Act-Unreasonable restraint of trade-Railroad's "prefer-
ential routing" agreements.-"Preferential routing" agreements incor-
porated by railroad in deeds and leases to several million acres of
land were unlawful as unreasonable restraints of trade under § 1 of
Sherman Act. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, p. 1.
APPEAL. See Procedure, 1-7.
ARCHIVES. See Supreme Court.
ARIZONA. See Constitutional Law, III, 3.
ARKANSAS. See Constitutional Law, III, 4.
ARMED FORCES. See Citizenship, 4; Constitutional Law, I, 2.
ASSIGNMENT. See Taxation, 1.
BACK PAY. See Labor, 2-3.
BAIL JUMPING. See Contempt, 2.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See Citizenship, 4.
BUSINESS EXPENSES. See Taxation, 3-4.
CALIFORNIA. See Interstate Commerce Commission, 1; Labor, 2.
CAPITAL GAIN. See Taxation, 1.
CARRIERS. See Admiralty, 1-2; Antitrust Acts; Employers'
Liability Act, 1-2; Federal Maritime Board; Interstate Com-
merce Commission, 1-2; Procedure, 2; Taxation, 4.
CHILDREN. See Constitutional Law, VI.
CITIZENSHIP. See also Aliens, 1-2; Constitutional Law, I, 1–2.
1. Denaturalization proceedings-Prerequisite-Affidavit of good
cause.-Affidavit showing good cause is prerequisite to initiation of
denaturalization proceeding; must be filed with complaint when pro-
ceedings are instituted. Matles v. United States, p. 256.
2. Denaturalization-Fraudulent procurement-Affidavit of good
cause-Sufficiency of evidence.-In 1952 suit under § 338 (a) of Na-
tionality Act of 1940 to set aside 1938 naturalization decree on
ground that it had been obtained fraudulently, affidavit of responsible
official based on official records satisfied "good cause" requirement of
§ 338 (a); but evidence insufficient to prove fraudulent procurement
of citizenship by Communist. Nowak v. United States, p. 660.
3. Denaturalization-Fraudulent procurement-Affidavit of good
cause-Sufficiency of evidence.-In 1953 suit under § 340 (a) of
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to set aside 1938 naturali-
zation decree on ground that it had been obtained by "concealment
of a material fact" and "willful misrepresentation," affidavit of "good
cause" was sufficient; but evidence was insufficient to support decree
of denaturalization of Communist. Maisenberg v. United States,
p. 670.
4. Loss of citizenship by service in foreign army-Burden of
proof-Sufficiency of evidence.-When American birth proven, Gov-
ernment has burden of proving voluntary act resulting in loss of
citizenship under § 401 (c) of Nationality Act of 1940; evidence not
sufficient to prove that service in Japanese army was voluntary.
Nishikawa v. Dulles, p. 129.
CLAYTON ACT. See Contempt, 2.
CLERK. See Supreme Court.
COMMERCE. See Antitrust Acts; Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion; Packers and Stockyards Act.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORP. See False Claims Act, 1.
COMMUNISM. See Aliens, 2; Citizenship, 2-3; Constitutional
Law, V, 1; Contempt, 1-2; Criminal Law, 1; Procedure, 10.
COMPETITION. See Antitrust Acts; Federal Maritime Board.
CONFESSIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 3—4.
CONGRESS. See Constitutional Law, I, 1-2; Criminal Law, 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Contempt, 1-2; Labor, 2-3.
I. Power of Congress.
1. Citizenship-Nationality Act-Voting in foreign election.-Con-
gress has power to provide that anyone who votes in a foreign political
election shall lose his American citizenship; not prevented by Four-
teenth Amendment; § 401 (e) of Nationality Act of 1940 sustained.
Perez v. Brownell, p. 44.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
2. Citizenship-Nationality Act-Desertion from Army.-Section
401 (g) of Nationality Act of 1940, providing for loss of citizenship by
soldier who is convicted by court-martial of desertion in time of war
and is dishonorably discharged, held unconstitutional as applied.
Trop v. Dulles, p. 86.
II. Equal Protection of Laws.
Racial discrimination-Selection of grand jury.-Consistent exclu-
sion of Negroes from grand juries denied defendant equal protection
of laws guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment, and his conviction for
murder is reversed. Eubanks v. Louisiana, p. 584.
1. State courts-Double jeopardy-Consecutive trials for multiple
offenses committed on same occasion.-State conviction for murder
and death sentence after same defendant had been convicted in two
earlier trials and sentenced to imprisonment for two other murders
committed on same occasion did not violate due process, though
details of all such murders were introduced in evidence. Ciucci v.
Illinois, p. 571.
2. State courts-Double jeopardy-Consecutive trials for multiple
offenses committed on same occasion.-State conviction for robbery
after acquittal of same defendant in three earlier trials for robbing
three other people on same occasion did not constitute double
jeopardy or otherwise violate Due Process Clause of Fourteenth
Amendment where state law made each robbery a separate offense.
Hoag v. New Jersey, p. 464.
3. State courts-Confession of murder.-Where undisputed evi-
dence showed that confession was voluntary, federal court properly
denied habeas corpus to review state-court conviction for murder;
it is for trial court and jury to weigh conflicting evidence on such
issues; District Court did not abuse discretion in denying writ on
basis of record without full hearing nor err in considering evidence
not in trial record but submitted before District Court. Thomas v.
Arizona, p. 390.
4. State courts-Coerced confession.-Admission in evidence of con-
fession coerced by fear of lynching at state-court trial of Negro for
murder violated Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment,
though other evidence may have been sufficient to convict. Payne v.
Arkansas, p. 560.
1. State courts Consecutive trials for multiple offenses committed
on same occasion.-State conviction for robbery after acquittal of
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
same defendant in three earlier trials for robbing three other people
on same occasion did not constitute double jeopardy or otherwise
violate Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment where state
law made each robbery a separate offense. Hoag v. New Jersey,
p. 464.
2. State courts Consecutive trials for multiple offenses committed
on same occasion.-State conviction for murder and death sentence
after same defendant had been convicted in two earlier trials and
sentenced to imprisonment for two other murders committed on same
occasion did not violate due process, though details of all such murders
were introduced in evidence. Ciucci v. Illinois, p. 571.
1. Waiver of privilege-Voluntary testimony in own behalf.-By
testifying in own behalf in denaturalization proceeding, defendant
waived privilege against self-incrimination; refusal to answer on cross-
examination questions re Communist Party membership was punish-
able by imprisonment on summary conviction without jury for crimi-
nal contempt. Brown v. United States, p. 148.
2. State courts-Coerced confession.-Admission in evidence of
confession coerced by fear of lynching at state-court trial of Negro for
murder violated Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment,
though other evidence may have been sufficient to convict. Payne v.
Arkansas, p. 560.
3. State courts-Confession of murder.-Where undisputed evi-
dence showed that confession was voluntary, federal court properly
denied habeas corpus to review state-court conviction for murder;
it is for trial court and jury to weigh conflicting evidence on such
issues; District Court did not abuse discretion in denying writ on
basis of record without full hearing nor err in considering evidence
not in trial record but submitted before District Court. Thomas v.
Arizona, p. 390.
VI. Full Faith and Credit.
Custody decree-Child in another State-Changed circumstances.—
Where New York divorce court awarded custody of child to grand-
father in North Carolina but later amended decree and awarded
custody to mother, who sued 14 months later in North Carolina to
enforce amended decree, North Carolina was not bound by New
York decree if circumstances had changed so as to make it in child's
best interest to remain in grandfather's custody. Kovacs v. Brewer,
p. 604.
See also Criminal Law, 1; Procedure, 10.
1. Criminal contempt-Refusal to answer-Waiver of privilege
against self-incrimination.-By testifying in own behalf in denatural-
ization proceeding, defendant waived privilege against self-incrimina-
tion, and summary conviction without jury of criminal contempt
for refusing on cross-examination to answer questions re Communist
Party membership sustained. Brown v. United States, p. 148.
2. Criminal contempt-Willful disobedience of court order to sur-
render for execution of sentence-Conviction by judge without jury—
Three-year sentence.-Willful disobedience of court order to surrender
for execution of sentence after affirmance of conviction for violating
Smith Act was criminal contempt; conviction by judge without in-
dictment or jury trial, and sentence to three years' additional im-
prisonment sustained; sufficiency of evidence. Green v. United States,
p. 165.
CONTRACTS. See Labor, 1-2.
COURT MARTIAL. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.
COURTS. See Contempt, 1-2; Procedure.
CREDIT INSURANCE. See False Claims Act, 2.
CREWMEN. See Admiralty, 1-2; Aliens, 3.
CRIMINAL LAW. See also Aliens, 3; Constitutional Law, II;
III, 1-4; V, 2-3; Contempt, 1-2; False Claims Act, 1-2;
Procedure, 1, 7, 10.
1. Contempt of Congress-Refusal to answer-Questions not perti-
nent.-Conviction under 2 U. S. C. § 192 for refusal to answer before
Senate Subcommittee reversed where refusal related to questions not
pertinent to subject on which Subcommittee had been authorized to
take testimony. Sacher v. United States, p. 576.
2. Narcotics violations - Defenses - Entrapment.-Where undis-
puted testimony of government witnesses established entrapment as
matter of law, conviction for selling narcotics reversed. Sherman v.
United States, p. 369.
3. Narcotics violations-Defenses-Entrapment.-Where person
charged with illegal sales of narcotics claimed entrapment, but evi-
dence on that issue was conflicting, judge properly submitted issue
to jury. Masciale v. United States, p. 386.
CROSS-EXAMINATION. See Constitutional Law, V, 1.
CUSTODY DECREE. See Constitutional Law, VI.
DAMAGES. See Admiralty, 1-2; Employers' Liability Act, 1-2;
Labor, 2-3; Workmen's Compensation.
|