Could not find header file for oye

 

  • View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/245/478.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    KRAMER v. U S , 245 U.S. 478 (1918)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    KRAMER v. U S , 245 U.S. 478 (1918)

    245 U.S. 478

    KRAMER et al.
    v.
    UNITED STATES.
    No. 680.

    Argued Dec. 13 and 14, 1917.
    Decided Jan. 14, 1918.

    Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.

    Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

    Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

    In this case, as in No. 702, Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474 , 38 Sup. Ct. 166, 62 L. Ed. --, just previously decided, because of constitutional questions, the case was brought here by direct writ of error, with the object of re- [245 U.S. 478, 479]   viewing and reversing a conviction and sentence under an indictment charging an unlawful conspiracy to induce persons whose duty it was to register under the Selective Draft Law (Act May 18, 191 , c. 15), not to perform that duty and alleging overt acts done for the purpose of carrying out the illegal conspiracy. The defenses were substantially the same as those urged in the previous case and the assignments of error made at the time of the allowance of the writs were identical. In fact at bar the propositions and arguments relied upon in the previous case were stated to be controlling in this. But, therefore, for the fact that there was different evidence in the two cases the considerations which control the one control the other. No distinction, however, results from that different since we are of opinion in this case as we were in the other after an examination of the entire record that the contention that there was no evidence tending to show guilt and hence the case should have been taken from the jury is without merit.

    As thus any conceivable distinction between the two cases is removed, it follows that for the reasons stated in the Goldman Case, supra, just decided, and in the Arver Case, 245 U.S. 366 , 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed . --, as to the constitutional questions, the judgment below in this case must be and it is

    Affirmed.

    FindLaw Career Center

    Ads by FindLaw