| Glasser v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 13–14, 1941 Decided January 19, 1942 | |
| Full case name | Daniel D. Glasser, Norton I. Kretske, and Alfred E. Roth v. United States |
| Citations | 315 U.S. 60 (more) 62 S. Ct. 457; 86 L. Ed. 680 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Glasser, 116 F.2d 690 (7th Cir. 1940), cert. granted, 313 U.S. 551 (1941). |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 315 U.S. 827 (1942). |
| Holding | |
| (1) A defense lawyer's conflict of interest arising from a simultaneous representation of co-defendants violates the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment (2) The exclusion of women from the jury pool, other than members of the League of Women Voters who have attended a jury training class, violates the fair-cross section requirement of the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Murphy, joined by Roberts, Black, Reed, Douglas, Byrnes |
| Dissent | Frankfurter, joined by Stone |
| Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.
Further, Glasser held that the exclusion of women (other than members of the League of Women Voters who had taken a jury training class) from the jury pool violated the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment, but declined to reverse the other two convictions on this ground for technical reasons. Glasser is the first majority opinion of the Court to use the phrase "cross-section of the community."[1][2] Glasser was also the first jury discrimination case to invoke the Sixth Amendment (rather than Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).[3]
The facts of Glasser were unusual as well. According to a contemporary Chicago Tribune article, it was "the first time federal employees here have been charged with tampering with federal court justice."[4] The five-week trial involved more than 100 witnesses, more than 4,000 transcript pages of testimony and argument, and 228 exhibits.[5]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
stringwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
chhwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
underwoodwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
trib2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Jury Ponders Fate of Five in 'Fix Ring' Case, Chi. Trib., Mar. 8, 1940, at 12.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search