Editing Dennis v. United States (section)

==Background of the case==
{{main|Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders}}

In 1948, eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and for the violation of several points of the [[Smith Act]]. The party members who had been petitioning for socialist reforms claimed that the act violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and that they served no clear and present danger to the nation. The eleven petitioners were:<ref name="Belknap_c">Belknap (1994), p 211.</ref><ref>Belknap (1977), p 51.<br/>Belknap (1994), p 207.<br/>Lannon, p 122.<br/>Morgan, p 314.</ref>
* [[Benjamin J. Davis]] &ndash; Chairman of the [[Communist Party USA|CPUSA]]'s Legislative Committee
* [[Eugene Dennis]] &ndash; General Secretary
* [[John Gates]] &ndash; Leader of the [[Young Communist League]]
* [[Gil Green (politician)|Gil Green]] &ndash; Member of the National Board
* [[Gus Hall]] &ndash; Member of the National Board
* [[Irving Potash]] –  Furriers Union official
* [[Jack Stachel]]
* [[Robert G. Thompson]] &ndash; Lead of the New York organization
* [[John Williamson (Communist)|John Williamson]] &ndash; Member of the Central Committee
* [[Henry Winston]] &ndash; Member of the National Board
* Carl Winter  &ndash; Lead of the Michigan organization

The 1949 trial was presided over by [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]] Judge [[Harold Medina]], a former [[Columbia University]] professor who had been a judge for only 18 months when the trial began.<ref name="Morgan">Morgan, p 314.<br/>Sabin, p 41.</ref>  The trial was held in the [[Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse|Foley Square federal courthouse]] in New York City, and opened on November 1, 1948; preliminary proceedings and jury selection lasted until January 17, 1949; the defendants first appeared in court on March 7; and the trial concluded on October 14, 1949.<ref name=11Guilty/><ref name="Morgan_a">Morgan, p 315.</ref>  Although later trials surpassed it, in 1949 it was the longest federal trial in US history.<ref name=11Guilty/><ref>Longer trials have been held since then, for example a 20-month trial in 1988.</ref>

Prosecutor John McGohey did not assert that the defendants had a specific plan to violently overthrow the US government, but rather alleged that the CPUSA's philosophy generally advocated the violent overthrow of governments.<ref name="Belknap_d">Belknap (1994), p 214.</ref> To prove this, the prosecution proffered articles, pamphlets and books (such as ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'') written by authors such as [[Karl Marx]].<ref>Belknap (1994), p 214.<br/>Belknap (1994), p 209.</ref>  The prosecution argued that the texts advocated violent revolution, and that by adopting the texts as their political foundation, the defendants were also personally guilty of advocating violent overthrow of the government.<ref name="Belknap_a">Belknap (1994), p 209.</ref>

The five attorneys who volunteered to defend the communists were familiar with leftist causes and personally supported the defendants' rights to espouse communist views. They were Abraham Isserman, [[George W. Crockett, Jr.]], Richard Gladstein, [[Harry Sacher]], and Louis F. McCabe.<ref>Sabin, p 42.<br/>Attorney Maurice Sugar participated in an advisory role.</ref><ref name=11Guilty>"[https://books.google.com/books?id=F1IEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31 Communist Trial Ends with 11 Guilty]", ''Life'', October 24, 1949, p 31.</ref>  Defendant Eugene Dennis represented himself. The [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]] was dominated by [[anti-communism|anti-communist]] leaders during the 1940s, and did not enthusiastically support persons indicted under the Smith Act. However, the ACLU did provide an [[amicus brief|''amicus'' brief]] for the Foley Square defendants, endorsing a motion for dismissal.<ref>Walker, pp 185&ndash;187. However, many local affiliates of the ACLU supported communist defendants.</ref>

The defense employed a three-pronged strategy: First, portraying the CPUSA as a conventional political party, which promoted [[socialism]] by peaceful means; second, employing the "labor defense" tactic to attack the trial as a capitalist venture which could never provide a fair outcome to proletarian defendants; and third, using the trial as an opportunity to publicize CPUSA policies.<ref>Walker, p 185.<br/>Belknap (1994), p 217.<br/>Sabin, pp 44&ndash;46.</ref>

The defense deliberately antagonized the judge by making a large number of objections and motions,<ref name="Morgan" /> which led to numerous bitter engagements between the attorneys and Judge Medina.<ref>Redish, p 82.<br/>Sabin, p 46.</ref> Out of the chaos, an atmosphere of "mutual hostility" arose between the judge and attorneys.<ref name="Sabin">Sabin, p 46.</ref> Medina came to believe that the defense attorneys were using the trial as an opportunity to publicize communist propaganda, and that they deliberately disrupted the trial using any means they could.<ref name="Redish">Redish, p 82.</ref> Judge Medina attempted to maintain order by removing defendants who were out of order. In the course of the trial, Medina sent five of the defendants to jail for outbursts. Several times in July and August, the judge held defense attorneys in contempt of court, and told them their punishment would be meted out upon conclusion of the trial.<ref>Martelle, p 190.</ref>

On October 14, 1949, after the defense rested their case, the judge gave the jury [[Jury instructions|instructions to guide them]] in reaching a verdict. After deliberating for seven and a half hours, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all eleven defendants.<ref name="Belknap_h">Belknap (1994), p 221.</ref> The judge sentenced ten defendants to five years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine each.

===Appeal===
Petitioners were found guilty by the trial court and the decision was affirmed by the [[Second Circuit Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Dennis |vol=183 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=201 |court=2d. Cir. |date=1950 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/183/201/266559/ |access-date=2017-11-21 }}</ref> The Supreme Court granted [[writ of certiorari]], but limited it to whether section two or three of the Smith Act violated the First Amendment and whether the same two sections violated the First and Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness.

George W. Crockett, Jr., Abraham J. Isserman and [[Harry Sacher]] argued the cause for [[Plaintiff|petitioners]]. With them on the brief was Richard Gladstein.

[[United States Solicitor General|Solicitor General]] [[Philip B. Perlman]] and [[Irving S. Shapiro]] argued the cause for the United States. With them on the brief were [[United States Attorney General|U.S. Attorney General]] [[James Howard McGrath]], [[United States Assistant Attorney General|U.S. Assistant Attorney General]] McInerney, [[Irving H. Saypol]], Robert W. Ginnane, Frank H. Gordon, Edward C. Wallace, and Lawrence K. Bailey.