Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. ROBEL

October 4, 1965

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Eugene Frank ROBEL, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LINDBERG

 The United States procured the indictment of Eugene Frank Robel in May, 1963 for an alleged violation of Section 5(a)(1)(D) of the Subversive Activities Control Act, 50 U.S.C. § 784(a)(1)(D). The indictment contains but one count which charges:

 
"COUNT I
 
"1. That there is and has been in effect since October 20, 1961 a final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring the Communist Party of the United States of America to register with the Attorney General of the United States as a 'Communistaction organization,' as defined in Title 50, United States Code, Section 782.
 
"2. That on or about August 20, 1962, the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the provisions of Title 50, United States Code, Section 784(b), designated the Todd Shipyards Corporation, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington, as a defense facility, and thereafter notices of such designation were posted, and continue to be so posted, by the corporation in conspicuous places about the plant.

 The subsection of the statute reads as follows:

 
"When a Communist organization, as defined in paragraph (5) of section 782 of this title, is registered or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register, it shall be unlawful -
 
"(1) For any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final -
 
* * *
 
"(D) if such organization is a Communist-action organization, to engage in any employment in any defense facility."

 Defendant promptly moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it fails to charge an offense for the reason that the statute upon which it is based is violative of Article I, Section 9, and of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and for the additional reason that the indictment fails to set forth and state certain essential elements of the offense charged.

 Briefs supporting and opposing the motion were filed and oral argument had. Decision on the motion has been delayed, awaiting final decision in the cases of Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964), 378 U.S. 500, 84 S. Ct. 1659, 12 L. Ed. 2d 992, and United States v. Brown (1965), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.