BECK v. WASHINGTON., 365 U.S. 866 (1961)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BECK v. WASHINGTON. , 365 U.S. 866 (1961)365 U.S. 866
David D. BECK, petitioner,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
No. 665.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 3, 1961
Charles S. Burdell and Donald McL. Davidson, for petitioner.
William L. Paul, Jr., for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Where accusation is by a grand
jury indictment, does a person (in this case a member and officer
of a labor
union who at the time of the grand jury proceedings was the subject of continuous, extensive and intensely prejudicial publicity) have a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to have the charges and evidence considered by a grand jury which was fair and impartial or, at least, which was instructed and directed to act fairly and impartially?
'(a) Where petitioner was a member
and officer of a labor union, and where prejudicial and
inflammatory charges against him were being widely and intensively
disseminated by all news media, did he have a right under the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
have the grand pury impaneled in a manner which would prevent or at
least tend to prevent the selection of biased and prejudiced grand
jurors?
'(b) Was it a denial of due process
and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for
the Court, in the course of instructing the grand jury, to make
statements of an inflammatory nature, prejudicial to petitioner,
including a statement that testimony before a United States Senate
Committee had disclosed that officers of the Teamsters Union
(including petitioner) '... had through trick and device, embezzled
or stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars of the funds of that
union-money which had come to the union from the dues of its
members ...?'
'(c) Where petitioner's rights under
the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment violated by inflammatory statements of the prosecutors
made in secret session of the grand jury, including statements of
disbelief of testimony favorable to petitioner, threats of perjury
charges against a witness who gave testimony favorable to
petitioner, and other statements of an inflammatory nature
prejudicial to petitioner?
'2. Was the petitioner's right to a
fair trial, as guaranteed by the due process and equal protection
clauses of [365 U.S.
866 , 868]
Opinions
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
No. 665. Supreme Court of the United States April 3, 1961 Charles S. Burdell and Donald McL. Davidson, for petitioner. William L. Paul, Jr., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:
U.S. Supreme Court
BECK v. WASHINGTON. , 365 U.S. 866 (1961) 365 U.S. 866 David D. BECK, petitioner,v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
No. 665. Supreme Court of the United States April 3, 1961 Charles S. Burdell and Donald McL. Davidson, for petitioner. William L. Paul, Jr., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Where accusation is by a grand
jury indictment, does a person (in this case a member and officer
of a labor
Page 365 U.S.
866 , 867
union who at the time of the grand jury proceedings was the
subject of continuous, extensive and intensely prejudicial
publicity) have a right under the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to have the charges and
evidence considered by a grand jury which was fair and impartial
or, at least, which was instructed and directed to act fairly and
impartially?
'(a) Where petitioner was a member
and officer of a labor union, and where prejudicial and
inflammatory charges against him were being widely and intensively
disseminated by all news media, did he have a right under the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
have the grand pury impaneled in a manner which would prevent or at
least tend to prevent the selection of biased and prejudiced grand
jurors?
'(b) Was it a denial of due process
and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for
the Court, in the course of instructing the grand jury, to make
statements of an inflammatory nature, prejudicial to petitioner,
including a statement that testimony before a United States Senate
Committee had disclosed that officers of the Teamsters Union
(including petitioner) '... had through trick and device, embezzled
or stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars of the funds of that
union-money which had come to the union from the dues of its
members ...?'
'(c) Where petitioner's rights under
the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment violated by inflammatory statements of the prosecutors
made in secret session of the grand jury, including statements of
disbelief of testimony favorable to petitioner, threats of perjury
charges against a witness who gave testimony favorable to
petitioner, and other statements of an inflammatory nature
prejudicial to petitioner?
'2. Was the petitioner's right to a
fair trial, as guaranteed by the due process and equal protection
clauses of
Page 365 U.S.
866 , 868
the Fourteenth Amendment, violated where a timely motion for a
continuance was denied, although inflammatory and prejudicial
statements concerning petitioner had been widely and intensively
disseminated in the press and in national magazines, and through
the media of radio and television, commencing prior to the
indictment of petitioner and continuing until the date of
trial?
'3. Was the petitioner's right to a
fair trial, as guaranteed by the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, violated where a seasonable application for a
change of venue was denied, although inflammatory and prejudicial
statements concerning petitioner had been widely and intensively
disseminated in the press and in national magazines, and through
the media of radio and television, commencing prior to the
indictment of petitioner and continuing until the date of
trial?'
Search This Case
