Clancy v. United States

PETITIONER: Clancy
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Trailways Bus Terminal

DOCKET NO.: 88
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 365 US 312 (1961)
ARGUED: Jan 10, 1961
DECIDED: Feb 27, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Clancy v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 10, 1961 (Part 1) in Clancy v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 10, 1961 (Part 2) in Clancy v. United States

Earl Warren:

Mr. O'Connell, you may continue.

Felix Frankfurter:

May I trouble you to tell me before you begin.

How many days did this trial take?

John F. O'connell:

Oh, it was the hottest -- hottest day of May and I think it took us four days.

It was --

Felix Frankfurter:

It was a short trial.

John F. O'connell:

13th, 14th --

Paul P. Waller, Jr.:

11th, 12th, 13th.

John F. O'connell:

11th, 12th, 13th and 14th of 1959.

There's one question I would like -- one more thing on this statement, then I'd like to drop it because I think that probably the integrity of the attorney is just not quite as important as the constitutional rights of our client.

But let me say, since we've been permitted to go completely outside the record that when I got the Government's brief, I was a lot more indignant than I appear to be here now and I call Cliff Ramer who is the United States Attorney.

And I said, "Cliff, you know it isn't so."

At first he said, "Well, John, he says that, "I think it's -- I think it's so."

And I said, “Cliff, you know it isn't so.

You weren't even in the courtroom.”

And he said, "Well, I call all the agents together and they said it was so," and I said, "Cliff, I'm going to be before the Supreme Court.

I'll make an affidavit in front of you.

You'd better be here."

And that was a long time ago and there's no affidavit and there's no Cliff.

That's all I have to say about it.

As Judge Frankfurter says, there could be certain things that may not necessarily be that you're lying but sure, he's got to be upset.

Anyhow, I think that the point that the Government makes about the constitutional rights of the -- petitioners were not involved since this was addressed to a specific place, with specific property can -- is answered because in the Ford Case a long, long time ago, probably the landmark case, that same objection was made.

And I -- I don't know how well I remembered it, but I've got it written down as -- best, I remember it.

Property as a property cannot offend forfeit.

And I remember this word, "Unlade, evade taxes or the like but only men whose goods they are."

And I think that's a sufficient answer to the Government's contention because it wasn't addressed to North Sales Company.

They were not involved.

There had no cause to complain.

The property was theirs.

Mr. Friedman has given his definition of what at large means to him.