|
Demarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Demarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974)
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE POWELL join, dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of trafficking in illegal narcotics in violation of the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1964 ed.). The Court of Appeals summarily rejected petitioner’s attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, and dealt in detail only with the Giglio issue upon which this Court decides to vacate and remand for consideration by the District Court. As the Court notes, this was a "factual issue," ante at 450, and raises no question whatever of general importance in the law. Commonly I would expect this petition to be denied for those reasons.
The Solicitor General, however, has filed a response in this Court which, though entitled "Memorandum in Opposition," incorporates in a footnote a backhanded invitation to the Court to follow the course which it has now taken. It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the Solicitor General. See, e.g., Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257 (1942); Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338, 344 n. 9 (1946). I believe there could not be a plainer case than this one for the invocation of the doctrine of invited error. For whatever may be the proper allocation of factfinding responsibilities between the Court of Appeals and the District Court, petitioner deliberately chose to raise this largely factual issue for the first time in the Court of Appeals, and to seek decision upon it there. That the Court of Appeals responded to the invitation is scarcely grounds for any claim of error here. I would deny certiorari.
Contents:
Chicago: Rehnquist, "Rehnquist, J., Dissenting," Demarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974) in 415 U.S. 449 Original Sources, accessed April 18, 2024, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CPPJ3I7KUW7JT3W.
MLA: Rehnquist. "Rehnquist, J., Dissenting." Demarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974), in 415 U.S. 449, Original Sources. 18 Apr. 2024. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CPPJ3I7KUW7JT3W.
Harvard: Rehnquist, 'Rehnquist, J., Dissenting' in Demarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974). cited in 1974, 415 U.S. 449. Original Sources, retrieved 18 April 2024, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CPPJ3I7KUW7JT3W.
|