http://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/podcast U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_619/argument None Thu, 28 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80425 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_815/argument None Thu, 28 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80475 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_404/argument None Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80342 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22/reargument-2 In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari. Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 admin 62319 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22/reargument-1 In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari. Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 admin 62317 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22/argument In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari. Wed, 27 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53939 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_471/argument None Tue, 26 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80366 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_147/argument-2 None Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80247 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_658/argument Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court and Schmerber was convicted. Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53930 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_147/argument-1 None Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80246 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_118/argument-e None Mon, 25 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80227 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_531/argument None Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80393 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_645/argument None Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80437 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_594/argument None Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80416 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_940/argument None Thu, 21 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80497 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_750/argument None Wed, 20 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80465 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_502/argument Raymond Dennis and others were members of the Communist Party; they were also officers and members of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. They filed false affidavits between 1949 and 1955 to satisfy the stipulations of 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which required all union officers to submit non-Communist affidavits. The union officials retained their Communist Party affiliations, filed the affidavits, and enabled the union to use the services of the National Labor Relations Board. The union officers were indicted by the United States District Court for conspiracy to fraudulently obtain the services of the National Labor Relations Board. Wed, 20 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80381 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_256/argument None Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80290 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_650/argument None Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80438 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_597/argument None Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80417 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_692/argument None Tue, 19 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80454 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_847/argument-e New York voters sought declaratory judgment in a New York federal district court to prevent compliance with Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English shall be denied the right to vote in any election because of his inability to read or write English. The plaintiffs argued that Section 4(e) prevented the enforcement of New York election laws which required an ability to read and write English as a condition of voting. A three-judge panel of the district court granted declaratory judgment and prevented enforcement of Section 4(e). It held that Congress exceeded its constitutionally designated powers in enacting Section 4(e) and usurped the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Mon, 18 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80484 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_673/argument None Mon, 18 Apr 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80448 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_505/argument None Tue, 29 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80382 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_73/argument-1 None Mon, 28 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80463 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_73/argument-2 None Mon, 28 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80464 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_970/argument None Mon, 28 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80500 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_695/argument None Thu, 24 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80456 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_440/argument-1 None Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80355 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_440/argument-2 None Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80356 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_439/argument None Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80354 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_636/argument None Wed, 23 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80436 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_535/argument-1 None Tue, 22 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80395 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_303/argument None Tue, 22 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80305 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_535/argument-2 None Tue, 22 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80396 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_657/argument-1 None Mon, 21 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80442 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_657/argument-2 None Mon, 21 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80443 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_131/argument None Mon, 21 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80234 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_487/argument None Thu, 03 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80373 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_67/argument None Thu, 03 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80447 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_412/argument None Wed, 02 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80345 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_762/argument-2 None Tue, 01 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80469 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_762/argument-1 None Tue, 01 Mar 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80468 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/argument The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53932 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/760_argument The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 admin 62201 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_490/argument After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53933 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/584_argument The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 64796 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/761_argument The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. Mon, 28 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 admin 62202 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_396/argument None Thu, 24 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80336 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_656/argument None Thu, 24 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80441 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_341/argument-1 None Wed, 23 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80318 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_341/argument-2 None Wed, 23 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80319 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_545/argument None Wed, 23 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80400 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_318/argument None Mon, 21 Feb 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80311 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_351/argument-e None Thu, 27 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80321 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_387/argument None Thu, 27 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80332 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_694/argument None Wed, 26 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80455 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_382/argument None Wed, 26 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80331 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_48/argument-2 Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison. Tue, 25 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53936 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_291/argument None Tue, 25 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80301 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_48/argument-1 Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison. Tue, 25 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53935 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_127/argument-1 None Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80231 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_282/argument None Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80296 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_127/argument-2 None Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80232 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_210/argument None Mon, 24 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80269 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_243/argument None Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80285 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_161/argument None Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80252 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_280/argument None Thu, 20 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80294 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_106/argument None Wed, 19 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80211 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_104/argument None Wed, 19 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 80210 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig/argument-1 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities. Mon, 17 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53937 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig/argument-2 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities. Mon, 17 Jan 1966 13:00:00 +0000 53938 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_46/argument None Thu, 09 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80361 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_219/argument None Thu, 09 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80276 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_30/argument None Wed, 08 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80304 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_69/argument-1 None Wed, 08 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80452 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_69/argument-2 None Wed, 08 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80453 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-2 A special provision of Massachusetts law allowed the Attorney General to initiate legal proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. The book, also known as Fanny Hill, was written by John Cleland in about 1750. Massachusetts courts, despite the defenses put forward by the book's publisher and copyright holder, judged the work to be obscene. Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 53929 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_49/argument None Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80379 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_42/argument Ralph Ginzburg and several of his associates were charged with violating a federal obscenity statute for mailing circulars about how and where three different obscene publications could be obtained. Ginzburg challenged his conviction as unconstitutional since the circulars themselves were not obscene. On appeal from an adverse ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding an unfavorable lower court finding, the Supreme Court granted Ginzburg certiorari. Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 53931 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-1 A special provision of Massachusetts law allowed the Attorney General to initiate legal proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. The book, also known as Fanny Hill, was written by John Cleland in about 1750. Massachusetts courts, despite the defenses put forward by the book's publisher and copyright holder, judged the work to be obscene. Tue, 07 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 53928 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_63/argument-1 None Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80434 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_14/argument None Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80241 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_41/argument The Audubon Regional library operated three branches and two bookmobiles. Blacks were not allowed to enter any of the branch libraries. The bookmobiles were segregated: a red one served only whites and a blue one served blacks. Brown was a black man who entered a library branch with four other blacks and requested a book, The Story of the Negro. The librarian informed Brown that the book was not available, but that she would request it through the state library, and he could pick it up or have it mailed to him. After the conversation, the men sat down (making no noise or disturbance) and refused to leave. They were arrested "for not leaving a public building when asked to do so by an officer." Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 53934 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_63/argument-2 None Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80435 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_47/argument None Mon, 06 Dec 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80367 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_29/argument None Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80302 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_52/argument None Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80391 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_45/argument None Thu, 18 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80359 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_57/argument None Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80407 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_44/argument None Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80357 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_58/argument None Wed, 17 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80410 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_14_orig/argument None Tue, 16 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80248 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_40/argument None Tue, 16 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80340 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_16/argument-1 None Mon, 15 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80254 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_16/argument-2 None Mon, 15 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80255 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_8/argument None Mon, 15 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80478 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_25/argument-2 None Wed, 10 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80289 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_23/argument None Wed, 10 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80281 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_25/argument-1 None Wed, 10 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80288 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_59/argument None Tue, 09 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80415 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_61/argument-2 None Tue, 09 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80424 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_65/argument On July 11, 1964 Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn was shot and killed by three members of the Ku Klux Klan while driving home from Washington, D.C. The alleged shooters, James Lackey, Cecil Myers, and Howard Sims, were indicted but acquitted by an all-white jury. Following the acquittal, the three defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy to threaten, abuse, and kill African- Americans. Three alleged co-conspirators, Denver Phillips, George Turner, and Herbert Guest, were also charged. U.S. Code defines criminal conspiracy as two or more individuals conspiring to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." The indictment filed against the six alleged conspirators accused them of acting to deny African-Americans full and equal enjoyment and utilization of goods and services, including access to state highways and free travel to and from Georgia on public streets. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it did not allege a specific denial of rights under U.S. law. The district court agreed, and dismissed the indictment. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the indictment alleged, in part, a denial of rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tue, 09 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80440 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_61/argument-1 None Tue, 09 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80423 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_28/argument None Mon, 08 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80295 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_20/argument-e None Mon, 08 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80267 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_27/argument None Mon, 08 Nov 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80293 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_51/argument None Thu, 21 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80386 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_19/argument None Thu, 21 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80265 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_15/argument None Thu, 21 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80251 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_18/argument None Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80262 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_38/argument None Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80330 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_17/argument None Wed, 20 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80258 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_12/argument None Tue, 19 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80230 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_21/argument-1 None Mon, 18 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80272 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_21/3_argument None Mon, 18 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80314 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_21/argument-2 None Mon, 18 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80273 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_55/argument None Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80401 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_11/37_argument Graham v. John Deere Co. was a suit for the infringement of a patent that consisted of a combination of old mechanical elements for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil in order to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Subsequently, the Eighth Circuit held that, since there was no new result in the combination, the patent was invalid. The parties in Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 37) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 43) sought a declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of a patent on finger-operated sprayers with a "hold-down" cap issued to Cook Chemical. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sustained the patent. Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80328 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_11/argument Graham v. John Deere Co. was a suit for the infringement of a patent that consisted of a combination of old mechanical elements for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil in order to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Subsequently, the Eighth Circuit held that, since there was no new result in the combination, the patent was invalid. The parties in Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 37) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co. (No. 43) sought a declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of a patent on finger-operated sprayers with a "hold-down" cap issued to Cook Chemical. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sustained the patent. Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80220 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_2/argument None Thu, 14 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80277 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_9/argument None Wed, 13 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80495 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_10/argument None Wed, 13 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80208 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_13/argument None Tue, 12 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80236 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_7/argument None Tue, 12 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80460 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_6/argument-2 None Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80429 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_5/argument None Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80389 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_4/argument None Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80347 at http://www.oyez.org /cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_6/argument-1 None Mon, 11 Oct 1965 13:00:00 +0000 80428 at http://www.oyez.org