Leviton Et Al. v. United States

1952-06-09

Headline: Declines review of defendants’ claim that newspaper reporting of an alleged bribe by a government lawyer denied them a fair trial, leaving the lower-court outcome intact and not ordering a new trial.

Holding: The Supreme Court declined to review the petition, leaving the lower-court ruling intact and not addressing the defendants’ claim that press reporting or prosecutorial disclosures denied a fair trial.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the lower-court result and convictions in place, no new trial ordered.
Shows the Court refused to review this press-related fair-trial claim in this instance.
Points parties and lower courts to handle such disputes without a Supreme Court ruling.

Topics: trial by media, fair trial, prosecutor conduct, jury prejudice

Summary

Background

Three men convicted in a federal criminal case asked the Supreme Court to review whether news coverage during their trial unfairly influenced the jury. A New York Times article on December 14, 1949, reported an unsupported $200 bribe allegation and other erroneous details, including an overstated amount of barbed wire and a suggestion of a larger "ring." Four copies of the newspaper were found in the jury room, and the trial judge told jurors to ignore the article.

Reasoning

The Court of Appeals majority said the judge’s clear instructions to the jury made a new trial unnecessary. A dissenter on that court argued the prosecutor had given off-the-record details to reporters, that the story recounted supposed courtroom testimony not in evidence, and that admonitions to jurors often fail to cure such prejudice. Justice Frankfurter’s memorandum explains the Supreme Court denied review because at least four Justices did not consider the question appropriate for this Court’s discretionary review, so the Court did not rule on the underlying fairness claim.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to take the case, the lower-court result remains in place and no Supreme Court ruling on the merits was made. The memorandum does not establish a national rule about press reports or prosecutorial disclosures. Courts and defendants will look to lower-court decisions for guidance, and claims about news coverage or prosecutor leaks must be pursued in those forums.

Dissents or concurrances

The appeals-court majority (Judge Clark) favored trusting judicial instructions to jurors; Judge Frank stressed the prosecutor’s role in creating the article and warned that such disclosures are particularly likely to prejudice a jury.