Document: 398 U.S. 58 90 S.Ct. 1555 26 L.Ed.2d 44 Daniel Jay SCHACHT, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 628. Argued March 31, 1970. Decided May 25, David H. Berg, Houston, Tex., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Solicitor Gen. Erwin N. Griswold respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion 1 The Schacht, was indicted in a United States District Court violating 18 U.S.C. § 702, which makes it crime any person 'without authority (to wear) uniform or distinctive part thereof * armed forces States, *'1 He tried and convicted jury, on February 29, 1968, he sentenced to pay fine $250 serve six-month prison term, maximum sentence allowable under 702. There is no doubt that Schacht did wear parts Army2 not member Armed Forces. has defended his conduct since beginning, however, ground authorized an Act Congress, 10 772(f), provides as follows: 2 'When wearing persons active duty authorized. 3 '(f) While portraying Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, actor theatrical motion-picture production may force if portrayal does tend discredit force.' (Emphasis added.) 4 argued trial court this wore army 'actor' 'theatrical production' performed several times between 6:30 8:30 a.m. December 4, 1967, front Forces Induction Center at Texas. street skit costume designed, view, expose evil American presence Vietnam larger, peaceful antiwar demonstration induction center morning. Appeals' affirming conviction summarized facts surrounding 5 'The evidence indicates Houston nationally coordinated movement take place contemporaneously places throughout country. appellants their colleagues prepared script be followed they actually rehearsed roles least once prior appointed day before student organization called 'Humanists'. 6 composed three people. who dressed cap. A second 'military colored' coveralls. third outfitted typical Viet Cong apparel. First two men carried water pistols. One them would yell, 'Be able American,' then shoot with pistols expelled red liquid which, when struck victim, created impression bleeding. Once victim fell down other walk up him exclaim, 'My God, pregnant woman.' Without noticeable variation reenacted during morning demonstration.' 414 F.2d 630, 632. 7 Our previous cases seem make clear making offense our military uniforms without is, standing alone, valid statute its face. See, e.g., v. O'Brien, 391 367, 88 1673, 20 672 (1968). But general prohibition 702 cannot always stand alone view 772, authorizes certain conditions circumstances including circumstance services production.' 772(f). Government's argument case seems imply somehow what these amateur actors should treated within meaning We are unable follow such suggestion. Certainly productions need buildings even defined area conventional stage. Nor professional heavily financed elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor performances, often amateurs, have played important entertainment education people world. Here, record shows dispute preparation repeated presentation short play designed create audience understanding opposition participation war. Supra, 60 page. It performances were crude amateurish perhaps unappealing, but same thing can said about many performances. believe Congress wrote out exception intended protect only narrow limited category professionally produced plays.3 Of course, we decide here all questions concerning scope find, emphatically do, participated section. 8 This brings us petitioner's complaint giving effect last clause 772(f) impose unconstitutional restraint right free speech. agree. face simply restricts 772(f)'s authorization those dramatic portrayals do 'tend discredit' military, but, restriction read together becomes made say things performance critical policies An actor, like everyone else country, enjoys constitutional freedom speech, openly criticize Government performance. denies bring into disrepute. In present participate praised final could federal attacked Army instead praising it. light earlier finding follows sustained punished speaking against role country Vietnam. Clearly punishment reason abridgment leaves Americans praise war send opposing it, survive Amendment. To preserve constitutionality must stricken from II 9 brief seriously contend jurisdiction consider merits petition certiorari timely filed Rule 22(2) Rules review appeals' judgment criminal 'shall deemed clerk thirty days after entry judgment.' accept requirement jurisdictional waived contains language calls so harsh interpretation, remembered rule enacted promulgated prescribe rules limitations taking appeals applying cases. See 3772; 37, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. procedural adopted orderly transaction business relaxed exercise discretion ends justice require. been expressly declared opinions Taglianetti 394 316, 89 1099, 22 302, n. (1969); Heflin 358 415, 418, 79 451, 453, 407, (1959). also R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Practice, 242—244 (4th ed. 1969), cited therein. true dealt question footnotes. disregard holdings fact footnote adequate treatment give issue. When accompanied motion, supported affidavits, asking grant despite 101 appropriate period filing had expired. Affidavits denied challenged showing petitioner acted good faith delay brought largely beyond control. detailing circumstances, sufficient note consideration motion affidavits 15, 1969, granted Justices dissenting. decision waiving defect permitting untimely thus months ago, new warranting reconsideration presented us. 11 For reasons stated Parts I opinion, Appeals reversed. 12 Reversed. 13 HARLAN, concurring. 14 join Part Court's opinion. With respect II, agree rejection 'jurisdictional' contention premised certiorari. my deserves fuller than accorded 15 fully come grips General's position. rejects untimeliness given stating, part, 'contains interpretation.' regard, limitation found different established statute;1 neither explicit reference waivers limitation. absence providing waiver, statutory jurisdictional.2 General asks why Rule. issue, i.e., treat requirements differently imposed statute, hardly acknowledged Moreover, although (1969), (1959), held waive Rule, explained so. belittle merely because each problem footnote, rather urges inconclusive gave conclusion.3 16 My own analysis issue begins examination 22(2). now 3772,4 provision authorizing post-verdict practice procedure Section 3772 specifically delegates power promulgate prescribing 'the manner Courts Appeals) writs *.' legislative history evinces congressional concern over undue delays disposition cases,5 board terms language, well written committee reports,6 convince me Congress' purpose limits apply. 17 Under unqualified delegation 3772, doubts required petitions 30 below provided cause shown, order avoid unfairness extraordinary think might 'excusable neglect'—in words 'jurisdictional rule.'7 22(2), promulgated, express allowing waiver. decisions interpreted allow however.8 So interpreted, find less possibility 19 anomalous occasion waives yet treats jurisdictional. As matter presumed extend specified statutes where there indication authorize Because 'waive' enactments, On hand, broad delegation, apply 'general principle' "(i)t administrative agency relax modify require it," Farm Lines Black Ball, 397 532, 539, 1288, 1292, 25 547 (1970), quoting N.L.R.B. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 763, 764 (C.A.8th Cir. 1953). III Although therefore conclude possesses recognized essential appellate process. Consequently, exercised sparingly, exists excuse noncompliance Rules. case, adequately failed meet requirements. basis concur 21 WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEWART join, concurring result. constitutionally distinguish uniform. agree, conclusion law engaged That me, properly left determination jury. 23 productions' setting equivalent playhouse theater observers will necessarily aware watching make-believe suggests, production'; hence, unauthorized lawful regard validity proviso Court, hand while refusing assay definition flatly declares possibly meant exclude 'street skit' class productions.' Neither extreme, correct. deciding count ought whether not, considering performance, ordinary observer thought seeing fictitious piece reality. And, judge's instructions precisely reflect eminently suited resolution 24 proper instructions, then, jury concluded involved, verdict sustained. However, permitted production, tended military. App. 51—54. disclose findings—only one entail conviction—was actual finding, course Stromberg California, 283 359, 51 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931). reversal necessary nor correct hold 'theatrics' amounted Title 'Whoever, Canal Zone, authority, wears anything similar Public Health Service auxiliary such, shall fined more imprisoned six months, both.' blouse type currently enlisted shoulder patch designating service Europe. buttons official design. head outmoded hat. Affixed hat inverted position eagle insignia worn hats officers. precise derives 1956 revision Titles 32, undertaken combining laws affecting Forces, eliminating duplicate provisions, clarifying language. At phrase 'actor substituted 'in moving-picture films representing therein character 39 Stat. 216—217. codification substantive changes, changes updating shift version clearly reflects intent move broader, flexible example, include television types wherever presented. H.R.Rep. 970, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 8; Statements Senators O'Mahoney Wiley, 102 Cong.Rec. 13944, 13953 (July 23, 1956). Compare with, 28 §§ 2101(b), (c). Both provide extensions time. was, extension E.g., Matton Steamboat Inc. Murphy, 319 412, 63 1126, 87 1483 (1943); Department Banking, State Nebraska Pink, 317 264, 233, 254 (1942); Citizens Bank Opperman, 294 448, 330, 701 (1919). relies ex rel. Coy 316 342, 62 1137, 86 1517 (1942), support claim 30-day limit 'jurisdictional.' limit—the XI 90-day provision—applied circuit affirmance district denial case. After noting Appeals, said: 'If applies, too late jurisdiction,' Id., 344, 1138. disposing 'writ dismissed failure comply XI,' id., 346, 1139, want jurisdiction. event, focus waived, thereby removing otherwise termed 47 904 (1933) 48 399 (1934). Before governed three-month 8(a) Judiciary 13, 1925, 43 940. 2047, 72d 2d (1933); S.Rep. 257, 73d supra, ('A code flexible; desirable experience promptly made. overwhelming weight among judges lawyers matters better controlled statute.'). Robinson, 361 220, 80 282, 259 (1960), Federal Criminal Procedure enlarge appeal though neglect.' thought, inter alia, inconsistent 45(b), 'deliberate intention' drafters. decided 'conflicting considerations' favor 'excusable-neglect' 'resolved through rule-making process judicial decision,' indications background existing omission deliberate. Robinson here, preclude supra; supra.

Category: 2