Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.

In Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950), the United States Supreme Court held that denial of a writ of certiorari could not be interpreted as anything other than a signal that fewer than four justices deemed it desirable to review the decision of the lower court. Such a denial indicates nothing about the merits or demerits of a case.

Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
Decided January 9, 1950
Full case nameMaryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., et al.
Citations338 U.S. 912 (more)
70 S. Ct. 252; 94 L. Ed. 562
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinion
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by a unanimous court

Facts of the case

A little girl was murdered horribly in Washington, D.C. and ten days later another girl was stabbed to death in Baltimore City. People were outraged and children were terrified. There was widespread interest and people were glued to their radios. Mr. Connelly of the Baltimore Radio Show then announced on the radio that Eugene James had been apprehended and charged with the Brill murder and that he had confessed, had a long criminal record, and had gone to the scene, reenacted the crime, and dug up the murder weapon.

Trial Court inquired into whether the broadcast have a clear and present effect upon the administration of justice and concluded that, while it didn't have an effect on the judges in this case, it had an effect on all potential jurors and therefore deprived counsel of the right to a jury trial. Removal wouldn't have worked, because the broadcast reached everyone in the state. Voir dire wouldn't have worked because it would require defense counsel to ask a potential juror whether he had heard a radio broadcast to the effect that his client had confessed to this crime. This was an obstruction of justice.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the conviction, stating that the power to punish for contempt was limited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state petitioned for a writ of certiorari which was denied by the Supreme Court.

Majority opinion

The denial of certiorari has no other significance than to signal that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court. This is a matter of “sound judicial discretion.” Considerations for denial of certiorari can be varied. Additionally, dissent on a denial of cert should not be read as indicating that only one person thought the petition should be granted.

Since reasons can conflict some have suggested that the Court give reasons for denial. For practical reasons the Court will not. It would just take too much time from its more important duties.

See also

References
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.