Dennis v. United States
Headline: Court denies delay in a criminal argument, allows an English lawyer to join, and keeps the December 4 date while granting two hours for oral argument divided among three attorneys.
Holding:
- Keeps the December 4 argument date for the criminal case.
- Allows an English barrister to appear pro hac vice.
- Limits oral argument to two hours split among three lawyers.
Summary
Background
The case involves petitioners in a criminal matter for which the Court granted review on October 23. The argument was scheduled for December 4, 1950. On November 17 the petitioners asked to postpone until January 22 so an English barrister could participate. The petitioners also sought permission for a non-U.S. lawyer to join and for extended argument time.
Reasoning
Mr. Justice Frankfurter explained that criminal cases should move quickly and that proper legal representation is important. He noted that parties may choose counsel from this Court’s bar or ask for special leave for nonmembers to appear pro hac vice, and that the Court will appoint counsel if a party truly lacks adequate representation. But the Court found no suggestion that the lawyers already representing the petitioners were unable to present the case. Those five lawyers had argued in the court below, won a bail motion, and filed a 280-page brief here. For those reasons, the Court denied the postponement but granted leave for an English barrister to appear and allotted two aggregate hours for argument divided among three attorneys.
Real world impact
Practically, the December 4 argument will go forward as planned. An English lawyer may appear with permission, but the overall oral argument time is limited to two hours shared by three attorneys. This order deals only with scheduling and counsel participation, not the final merits of the criminal case.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?