Hannah v. Larche

LOCATION: Approximately half-way between Santa Marta, Colombia and Miami. Florida (by water)

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)

CITATION: 363 US 420 (1960)
ARGUED: Jan 18, 1960 / Jan 19, 1960
DECIDED: Jan 20, 1960

Facts of the case


Media for Hannah v. Larche

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 19, 1960 (Part 2) in Hannah v. Larche
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 18, 1960 in Hannah v. Larche

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 19, 1960 (Part 1) in Hannah v. Larche

Earl Warren:

Number 549, John A. Hannah et al., Appellants, versus Margaret M. Larche et al.

And Number 550, John A. Hannah et al. versus J. A. H. Slawson et al.

Judge Walsh, you may continue your argument.

Lawrence E. Walsh:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

I have very little to add.

I would like to correct one statement which I made yesterday in answer to Mr. Justice Black as to the maximum sentence for contempt under this Act.

I overlooked the fact that Section 151, which is on page 66 of the printed record, applies to the entire Act.

That Section is in part 4 which the Department of Justice deals with and I had overlooked that it puts a six-month limit on any sentence for contempt and I should like to correct my statement to that effect.

Hugo L. Black:

Page 160?

Lawrence E. Walsh:


Page 60 -- page 66, Your Honor.

Hugo L. Black:

Thank you.

Lawrence E. Walsh:

It's at the bottom of the page -- that can't be.

In the -- in the proviso beginning at line 3 of that Section -- line 4 of that Section.

Earl Warren:

What page you say?

Lawrence E. Walsh:

Page 66, Your Honor.

Earl Warren:

And that -- that's the maximum where he's tried by a jury?

Lawrence E. Walsh:

He's tried without a jury, it's less, Your Honor --

Earl Warren:


Lawrence E. Walsh:

45 days.

Earl Warren:

If he -- if tried by a court, the maximum is $300 fine or imprisonment, less than or not to exceed 45 days.

Lawrence E. Walsh:

Exactly, Your Honor.

That's right, Mr. Chief Justice.

In addition to that, Your Honor, I simply like to mention very briefly confrontation and prior apprisal, because as I indicated at the beginning, I don't think the facts of this case raise those issues, but I would just -- inasmuch as the court below became concerned with them, I -- I would like to mention them very briefly.

I -- I don't see how confrontation comes in here at all.

The Commission wants to put the witnesses on the stand in public.

And it's the injunction of the court below that prevents it.

The only way confrontation could be an issue would be if the Commission, on secret testimony, issued a defamatory statement about these registrars.

Now, the -- the Commission doesn't want to do that and it's limited in its disclosure.

It's public disclosure of these witnesses and their identities at the hearing by the injunction below.