Marder v. Massachusetts

Background

An individual appealed a Massachusetts traffic conviction to the Supreme Court; the appeal came from the Superior Court of Suffolk County. The appellant appeared without a lawyer, and the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Edward W. Brooke, represented the State. The appeal challenged a state statute that appears to require people charged with traffic offenses to choose between pleading guilty and paying a small fine or going to trial and risking a larger punishment if convicted.

Reasoning

The Court, in a brief per curiam order, granted the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of a substantial federal question and therefore denied review. The Court did not decide the underlying constitutional issue about the Massachusetts statute, so no national legal rule was announced. In his dissent, Justice Goldberg (joined by Justice Douglas) said the question presented a substantial federal issue and would have noted probable jurisdiction; Justice White agreed that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Real world impact

Because the Court dismissed the appeal, the high court did not resolve whether the Massachusetts law impermissibly pressures people to plead guilty to avoid the risk of a stiffer sentence at trial. The dismissal leaves the lower-court outcome in place and means that people charged with traffic offenses in Massachusetts still face the same plea-or-trial choice unless a future court takes up the issue.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent stresses that the constitutional question is substantial and that the Court should have considered whether the State’s law unfairly coerces plea decisions.