RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Annette Islands, Alaska
DOCKET NO.: 10
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
CITATION: 364 US 631 (1961)
ARGUED: Dec 13, 1960
DECIDED: Jan 16, 1961
Facts of the case
Media for Travis v. United StatesAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 13, 1960 (Part 2) in Travis v. United States
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 13, 1960 (Part 1) in Travis v. United States
Number 3, number 10, and number 71, Maurice E. Travis, Petitioner versus United States.
Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Court.
This case comes here on certiorari to the Tenth Circuit and it involves an appeal from a conviction for filing false affidavits under the Taft–Hartley Law, false non-Communist affidavits.
Section 9 (h) of the Taft–Hartley Law, since repealed is the statute proscribing that such affidavit shall be filed by the officers of unions which wished to utilize the provisions of the Taft–Hartley Law.
The statutes under which he petitioner was tried and convicted are the same as those that were involved in two cases that had been here three or four years ago, the Jencks case and the Ben Gold case.
Although the questions that are involved in this case are on the whole different from the ones involved there.
There are in fact one or two questions that overlap -- that were in Gold and will recur in this case.
Now, I should explain at the outset that this case has three numbers but it's all one case.
The appeal from the conviction, which is the main part of the case, is number 10 and the record in number 10 is contained in these two some of the ponderous volumes.
After the petitioner was convicted, there were two separate motions made for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
And those motions were separately denied by the trial court and separately affirmed by the Court of Appeals and separately petitioned for here and that is why they bear different numbers.
Numbers 3 and 71 are the certiorari -- the writs running to the Court of Appeals decisions denying those motions for a new trial.
But the main part of the case and the main problems are those associated with the -- the appeal from the conviction itself which is in number 10 with a two volume records.
Just as a matter of curiosity, Mr. Taylor, is it customary in cases in which -- for appellate procedure of Second Circuit to break up --
-- every new case?
I beg your pardon, the Tenth Circuit.
To break up that way?
Well, there was a question in 10 here.
Actually, the first motion for a new trial was decided by the Court of Appeals before it affirmed the appeal from the conviction itself.
The -- it took them longer to decide the appeal and therefore, they denied the first motion for a new trial.
Did they all went up together?
No, they didn't all go up together.
The -- the motion for the first new -- first motion for new trial went up and is acted --
Before the day --
No, it didn't.
John M. Harlan II:
Is it up there before?
It was acted on before yes.