Johnson Et Al. v. United States

Background

Two men were convicted of disorderly conduct after being charged with making offensively coarse utterances, gestures, and addressing abusive language to people in a federal recreational area. At trial the judge read the park regulation defining disorderly conduct to the jury but did not explain or limit any of the terms. There was no objection at trial. The men appealed and asked the Supreme Court to review several challenges to their convictions.

Reasoning

The Court declined to take the case and denied the petition for review, so it did not rule on the underlying questions. In the papers before the Court, the Government said it would not oppose granting review and reversing because the minimal jury instruction might allow an unacceptably broad reading of the regulation. One Justice (Marshall), joined by the Chief Justice, agreed with that view and argued the defect could be noticed even without a trial objection under the federal rules cited in the opinion.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review the convictions, the judgments remain in effect for now. The ruling does not resolve whether reading the regulation without further explanation to jurors is legally acceptable. The dispute about whether courts can correct such defects without an objection was raised but not decided by the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Chief Justice Warren, dissented and would have granted review and reversed the convictions because the jury instructions were too minimal and could support an overly broad conviction.