ROSENBERG V. DENNO, 346 U. S. 271 (1953)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 346 U. S. 271
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/346/271/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/346/271/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Rosenberg v. Denno, 346 U.S. 271 (1953)
Rosenberg v. Denno
No. 1, Misc.
June 15 Special Term, 1953
Decided June 15, 1953
346 U.S. 271
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND STAY OF EXECUTION
Syllabus
The Rosenbergs had been sentenced to death for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917, and the time of execution had been fixed for the week of June 15, 1953. As the Court was about to adjourn the October Term, 1952, on June 15, 1953, their counsel submitted a motion for leave to file a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution. Later that afternoon, the Court met in Special Term pursuant to a call by THE CHIEF JUSTICE having the approval of all the Associate Justices. All Members of the Court were present.
Held: leave to file petition for an original writ of habeas corpus denied.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to file petition for an original writ of habeas corpus is denied.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER:
The disposition of an application to this Court for habeas corpus is so rarely to be made by this Court
directly that Congress has given the Court authority to transfer such an application to an appropriate district court. 28 U.S.C., § 2241. I do not favor such a disposition of this application, because the substance of the allegations now made has already been considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, on review, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Neither can I join the Court in denying the application without more. I would set the application down for hearing before the full Court tomorrow forenoon. Oral argument frequently has a force beyond what the written word conveys.