OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# North Carolina v. Alford (400 U.S. 25)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 25
North Carolina v. Alford
Argued: Nov. 17, 1969. --- Decided: Oct 14, 1970
Syllabus
Appellee was indicted for the capital crime of first-degree murder. At that time North Carolina law provided for the penalty of life imprisonment when a plea of guilty was accepted to a first-degree murder charge; for the death penalty following a jury verdict of guilty, unless the jury recommended life imprisonment; and for a penalty of from two to 30 years' imprisonment for second-degree murder. Appellee's attorney, in the face of strong evidence of guilt, recommended a guilty plea, but left the decision to appellee. The prosecutor agreed to accept a plea of guilty to second-degree murder. The trial court heard damaging evidence from certain witnesses before accepting a plea. Appellee pleaded guilty, although disclaiming guilt, because of the threat of the death penalty, and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals, on an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, found that appellee's guilty plea was involuntary because it was motivated principally by fear of the death penalty. Held: The trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting appellee's guilty plea. Pp. 31-39.
(a) A guilty plea that represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to a defendant, especially one represented by competent counsel, is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because it was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. Pp. 31-39.
(b) Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 47 S.Ct. 127, 71 L.Ed. 347, which held that a federal court may impose a prison sentence after accepting a plea of nolo contendere, implicitly recognized that there is no constitutional bar to imposing a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling to admit guilt but who is willing to waive trial and accept the sentence. Pp. 35-36.
(c) An accused may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even though he is unwilling to admit participation in the crime, or even if his guilty plea contains a protestation of innocence, when, as here, he intelligently concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly evidences guilt. Pp. 37-38.
(d) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not prohibit the States from accepting pleas to lesser-in-cluded offenses. P. 39.
405 F.2d 340, vacated and remanded.
Jacob L. Safron, Raleigh, N.C., for appellant.
Doris R. Bray, Greensboro, N.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# North Carolina v. Pearce
## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Harlan
    White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 711
State of NORTH CAROLINA et al., Petitioners, v. Clifton A. PEARCE. Curtis M. SIMPSON, Warden, Petitioner,
Argued: Feb. 24, 1969. ---
[Syllabus from pages 711-712 intentionally omitted]
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners North Carolina and others.
Larry B. Sitton, Greensboro, N.C., for respondent, Pearce.
Paul T. Gish, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner, Simpson.
Thomas S. Lawson, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent, Rice.
Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Bar Board Referendum

BAR BOARD REFERENDUM
The referendum ballotting for recommendations to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a successor to Hon. C. J. Fisk on the State Bar Board was closed on the 20th of December. At that time 277 ballots had been cast. The total number of names listed on the ballots was 154. A large number of these received only one or two votes each.
​The vote was canvassed by the Secretary and certified, under oath, to the Committee appointed by President Cupler. The Committee then reported to the President and the President to the Supreme Court.
Those receiving ten or more votes each were as follows: Tracy R. Bangs, 15; George Bangs, 12; H. A. Bronson, 10; Horace Bagley, 10; A. W. Cupler, 11; A. G. Divet, 18; S. E. Ellsworth, 13; C. J. Fisk, 194; John Knauf, 22; Aubrey Lawrence, 33; W. A. McIntyre, 10; B. F. Spalding, 14; C. L. Young, 12; Alfred Zuger, 12.
Subsequent to the closing of the ballot 13 additional ballots were received, which did not change the result, and showed the following distribution among those listed above: George Bangs, 1; A. W. Cupler, 1; A. G. Divet, 2; C. J. Fisk 9; John Knauf, 2; W. A. McIntyre, 1.
The members of the Bar Board holding over are S. D. Adams and C. L. Young. Later the appointment of Judge Fisk has been announced.
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/President Culper Visits Minnesota Bar

PRESIDENT CUPLER VISITS MINNESOTA BAR
"At the invitation of the Hennepin County Bar Association, I had the honor of representing the North Dakota Bar at their meeting held in Minneapolis, December 18, 1924, which was called to act upon the Bill proposed by the Minnesota State Bar Association to the coming legislature of Minnesota for the reorganization of their Bar Association.
"Since 1920 the Minnesota State Bar Association has been endeavoring to have passed by the Legislature a law similar to ours. At the 1923 session of their legislature a bill was introduced, but on opposition from a certain group of attorneys it was not passed. A new bill has been drafted in an endeavor to meet these objections which chiefly related to the power of the Association and its Board of Governors to discipline and disbar members of the Association.
"I was requested to explain the plan of our organization and our experience with it. I told them of the successful operation of our Association under the compulsory plan of organization.
"At the invitation of the committee in charge of the bill for the Ramsey County Bar Association I met with them at St. Paul on the 19th inst., and gave them my observations of the successful operation of our plan of organization.
"The bill to be introduced at the coming session of their legislature is essentially the same as our Bar Board and Bar Association Acts, and provides for an annual license fee from every practicing lawyer. The Meetings at Minneapolis and St. Paul, with few dissenting voices, endorsed the bill, and similar meetings are being held in the several judicial districts of the state, and, I have no doubt, will result in similar endorsement of the bill and of the plan under which we are operating.
"I extended to the Bench and Bar of both cities fraternal greetings, and was asked to convey to North Dakota Bench and Bar their greetings and best wishes.
"The suggestion was made by them that a joint annual meeting of the Minnesota and North Dakota Bar Association be held at some time in the future, and that we cooperate in arranging for speakers, and that an exchange of speakers at annual meetings be considered. I mention this as an evidence of the very cordial feeling which exists toward the Bench and Bar of North Dakota."
A. W. Cupler, President.
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Code Revision

CODE REVISION
The President of the State Bar Association appointed a Committee to outline a plan for the revision, compilation, or codification of the statutes. The last compilation was made in 1913, and the last codification in 1895. There have since been held five regular, and two special legislative sessions, resulting in additions to the statutes, of over two thousand pages. The enactments of the Session of 1925 will be included in the compilation.
The Committee consists of Sveinbjorn Johnson, Chairman, Chas. M. Pollock, Fargo, Aubrey Lawrence, Fargo, C. J. Fisk, Minot, Geo A. Bangs, Grand Forks, Ed. Pierce, Sheldon, and S. E. Ellsworth, Jamestown. The Committee met at Fargo on December 20th, and, after canvassing the situation, decided to recommend a compilation of the statutes under the general supervision of the Supreme Court, the Court to make the necessary arrangements for printing and publishing the volume. This plan was successfully carried out in Montana when the latest revision was made. It is understood that Mr. Nestos will include in his message to the Legislature a recommendation that appropriate action be taken for the compilation of the statutes.
Members of the Bar can materially assist the Committee by bringing the facts as to the necessity for the compilation to the attention of their representatives in both houses of the Legislature.
Hon. Sveinbjorn Johnson, Chairman.
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Happy New Year!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
1924 is dead. 1925 is here, and on its way.
Whatever the dead year may have brought to the Association or its members, the New Year will not be what it ought to be unless what has been is the inspiration to what is and what is to be.
The failures of the past, if any there be, may be the very stepping stones to the achievements of the future. The successes only sharpen desire for more and greater success.
From an Association standpoint 1924 marked a distinct step forward. More members of the Association became interested in its affairs. More zeal was displayed by those placed on committees. More time was given, more talent freely devoted, by individuals for the good of all.
Much of this intensive effort, interest and zeal came in direct response to the activity of Committee Chairmen. That activity, again, gained much of its initial impetus through the enthusiasm of the immediate Past President, L. R. Nostdal. And his enthusiasm was largely the creation of the opportunities that presented themselves by reason of the changed status of the Association.
There must be no let-up for 1925. There will be none, if the President "carries on" with his election pledges, if the present response of Committee Chairmen continues, if current reports of individual industry and enthusiasm are expressions of fact instead of hope.
Happy New Year! And full speed ahead!
"SECK"
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Legislative Committee

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
"The Legislative Committee of the North Dakota Bar Association will meet at Bismarck, North Dakota on Monday, February, 2nd, 1925, at 9:00 A. M. at Supreme Court Library, Memorial Building. All members of the Committee are requested to be present as important matters will be considered. The meeting is called for a two-fold purpose: first, to make plans for introducing bills, carrying out the recommendations of the State Bar Association at the Jamestown meeting; and secondly, to co-operate with any other Committees of the Association which are interested in legislation. It will be recalled that the Legislative Committee was charged with certain duties pertaining to recommendations of the State Association, while considerable legislation was left with the committees which had proposed it. The meeting is fixed at a time when it is hoped most of the routine legislation will be out of the way. There is no legislation in which the Committee is interested that is of a partisan nature, and the Committee will not assist in the passage of or defeat of partisan legislation. Changes must be made in the present laws and new laws must be adopted in order to keep pace with the advancing lines of civilization.
"The Chairman sent to each member of the Committee the recommendations made at the State meeting in Jamestown sometime ago, but only a few of the members have replied. It is to be hoped that all members of the Legislative Committee will take the trouble to reply to the communication within the next few days."
J. F. T. O'Connor. Chairman.
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Probate Code Committee Reports

PROBATE CODE COMMITTEE REPORTS
The report of Hon. Horace Bagley, Chairman of the Committee on Revision of Probate Code is that the Committee has decided upon the following course of action:
"To have introduced a bill amending the present Probate Code in the following respects:
   * To provide a uniform form of citation and methods of service thereof and abolishing the order hearing petition;
   * To provide for filing all claims with the County Judge and fixing a day of hearing thereon, on which day said claims shall be adjudicated;
   * To simplify and make uniform the procedure on petition to sell and to mortgage real estate.
"In addition to the above bill, it was decided to introduce a bill to define the liability of executors and administrators for money on deposit in banks in case of failure thereof."
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2

BAR BRIEFS
PUBLISHED MONTHLY
——By——
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA
Application for entry as Second Class Matter at the Postoffice at Bismarck, N. D., Pending
* Happy New Year!
* President Culper Visits Minnesota Bar
* Bar Board Referendum
* Code Revision
* Probate Code Committee Reports
* Legislative Committee
* Retiring Chief Justice Commends Association
* Cost and Causes of Crime
* Uniform Interpretations of Canons of Ethics
* National Oratorical Contest on Constitution
* Decisions of the Supreme Court
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/Cost and Causes of Crime

COST AND CAUSES OF CRIME
"Estimates presented at the recent meeting of the American Bankers Association fixed last year's losses to the owners of property, as the result of the operations of criminals of all kinds, at a sum that exceeded the total expenditures of the Federal Government in the same year. In other words, the losses resulting from dishonesty reached to between $3,000,000,000 and $4,000,000,000. This stupendous sum represents one year's cost of society's failure to measure and cope with crime.
"Justice James C. Cropsey of the Supreme Court of New York attributes over eighty per cent of crime to persons under twenty-five years of age. In his opinion, the average youthful criminal operates upon the theory that the world owes him a living. Justice Cropsey, therefore, finds that moral, instead of mental, deficiencies account for most criminal acts. According to his observations, the criminal proclivities of the young are due to inadequate home training and to the decline of religious ​influences. Justice Cropsey says that the young criminal is easily led into radicalism, a fact which shows that his predisposition to crime is in part an outgrowth of his political and economic education.
"The situation presents a major problem for the consideration of the responsible leadership of the country."
The foregoing is from an American Exchange National Bank letter. It may not be amiss, therefore, to point out possible sources of inspiration. We point to some testimony taken by the Lusk Committee in New York a few years ago:
"Q. Do you mean that they teach the children to disregard the law? A. I mean that our attitude towards the child would be for him to take his position in regard to the law.
"Q. Then, according to the teachings, a child might arrive, however, at a conclusion that a particular law, being offensive to his ideals, he could disregard it although it is the law? A. If he was prepared to take the consequences. That is up to the child.
"Q. If they are prepared to take the consequences, they are at liberty to feel that they may disregard the specific statutes of the United States? A. If they are prepared to act and take the consequences of their acts, if they are prepared to act according to their consciences and take the responsibility for their acts, that would not be out of harmony with the teachings of the Ferrer School."
Do you wonder that the valedictory peroration of one of the students read like this?
"In the great world-wide struggle which is taking place today, we must take an active part. We must not fail, we must not falter. The ideals which inspired Marx and Engels, Bebel and Lassalle, the ideals which today inspire Debs and Lenine (now deceased), are the ideals which inspire us."
# North Dakota Law Review/Volume 1/Number 2/National Oratorical Contest on Constitution

NATIONAL ORATORICAL CONTEST ON CONSTITUTION
The final meeting of the national oratorical contest on the Constitution was held at Washington, in Memorial Continental Hall, on June 6. President Coolidge presided, and was presented to the audience by Temporary Chairman, Hon. R. E. L. Saner, President of the American Bar Association. The judges of the contest were Chief Justice Taft and Justices Van Deventer, Sanford, Sutherland and Butler. Mr. Don Tyler of Los Angeles won first place in the contest, and a prize of $3,500. Miss Ruth Newburn of Washington won the second prize of $1,000 and Mr. John M. Dallam, III, of Philadelphia, the third prize of $500.
# O'Brien v. Wheelock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 450
O'Brien v. Wheelock
Argued: October 21, 22, 1901. --- Decided: February 24, 1902
This case is brought here by certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit to review a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois, 78 Fed. 673, affirmed by the court of appeals, 37 C. C. A. 309, 95 Fed. 883. The bill relates to certain proceedings under an act of the general assembly of the state of Illinois, approved April 24, 1871, entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Construction and Protection of Drains, Ditches, Levees, and Other Works.' The opinion of the circuit court of appeals was delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan, presiding as circuit justice, and the case is therein stated thus:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O'Brien v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 99
O'Brien v. Smith
James O'Brien, the defendant below, on the 18th of September, 1858, drew his check on Chubb & Bro. for $1,150, and passed it to the Bank of the Metropolis in part payment of a debt which he owed there, and which was due that day. The drawee's place of business was in the same street with the Bank of the Metropolis, and only eighty feet distant. The Bank of the Metropolis took the check on a Saturday, about two o'clock in the afternoon, and presented it for payment on the following Monday at eleven o'clock in the morning. Chubb & Bro. had failed in the mean time, and payment was refused. The check was duly protested, and notice of its dishonor was regularly given to the drawer.
The Bank of the Metropolis was not an incorporated institution, but a private partnership, carrying on business under that name. Richard Smith, its cashier, held the note for the use of the concern, and brought assumpsit in the Circuit Court to recover the amount of the check from O'Brien, the drawer.
The defence was that the Bank of the Metropolis ought to have demanded payment of the check on the day it was received, and that the postponement of the demand from Saturday until Monday was a want of diligence which discharged the drawer from all liability on the paper.
The Circuit Court instructed the jury that if the plaintiff took the check on the 18th in the afternoon, and presented it for payment on the morning of the 20th, the intervening day being Sunday, there was no delay or negligence which would have the legal effect of discharging the drawer. To these instructions the defendant excepted, and upon the verdict and judgment being rendered against him, he took this writ of error.
Mr. Davidge and Mr. Ingle, for plaintiff in error, argued: 1. That reasonable diligence was not used in presenting the check. Admitting that the demand might have been delayed until the next day, if that had not been Sunday, yet, as this check was received on Saturday, the custom of merchants required it to be presented the same day, and this custom is extended by analogy to the execution of all contracts. 2. The Bank of the Metropolis is not chartered, and the paper sued on is held by the defendant in error for the benefit of an unincorporated partnership. He has no legal title to the paper, and cannot recover in his own name. Olcott vs. Rathbone, (5 Wend., 490;) Sherwood vs. Rays, (14 Pick., 172.)
Mr. Carlisle, for defendant in error. 1. The presentation of the check on Monday morning was in reasonable time. Story on Bills, § 419; Grant on Banking, 50, 200. 2. The plaintiff, as cashier of the bank and holder of the check for the use of the bank, can recover. It was so held in Law vs. Parnell, (7 J. Scott N. S., 282,) which was this very case.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O'Brien v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 345
O'Brien v. United States
Philip A. Gillis, for petitioner O'Brien.
Ivan Barris, for petitioner Parisi.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O'Brien v. Smith/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 99
O'Brien v. Smith
We think the decision of the Circuit Court was right upon both of the points raised in the argument. The authorities referred to by the counsel for the defendant in error are conclusive, and it cannot be necessary to discuss here questions which we consider as too well settled to be now open to serious controversy.
Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O'Brien v. Weld

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 81
O'Brien v. Weld
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mr. A. J. Vanderpoel for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Granville P. Hawes for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse